DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 03 March 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, no claims have been cancelled, claims 20-27 have been added, and claims 1-10 & 18-27 are currently pending in the application. The rejections of claims 1-10 and 18-19 are maintained and the arguments are addressed below. Claims 20-27 are addressed in the updated rejections presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, and 18-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,103,621 issued to Fackler (Fackler) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0128583 by López-Pozas Lanuza (López-Pozas Lanuza), or vice versa.
Regarding claim 1, Fackler discloses a wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge (See Figures, clearly illustrated) comprising a first portion having an open end and comprising a first recess arranged to receive a determined volume of projectile(s) (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 17 and contains elements 16), and a second portion having an open end and comprising a second recess arranged to receive a determined volume of at least one propellant charge (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 20 and contains element 15), wherein said wadding is a single plastic piece (See at least Column 2 Lines 39-46).
Fackler does not disclose the specific material of the wadding and that the wadding is at least partially biodegradable.
López-Pozas Lanuza, a related prior art reference, discloses an at least partially biodegradable wadding (See at least Abstract) wherein said wadding comprises one or more polymer(s) including one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein said wadding comprises calcium carbonate (See at least Paragraph 0040), wherein the mass fraction of said one or more polymer(s) in said wadding is greater than or equal to 70% (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% (See at least Paragraphs 0016, 0049, and claim 1), and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) is/are the majority by mass in said wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate” would be the majority in the mixture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Fackler to provide a container wad with the noted teachings of López-Pozas Lanuza to make the container wad from an at least partially biodegradable material. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to reduce environmental contamination as taught by López-Pozas Lanuza and/or to utilize an appropriate material for the shot container as indicated by Fackler with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, López-Pozas Lanuza discloses an at least partially biodegradable wadding (See at least Abstract) wherein said wadding comprises one or more polymer(s) including one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein said wadding comprises calcium carbonate (See at least Paragraph 0040), wherein the mass fraction of said one or more polymer(s) in said wadding is greater than or equal to 70% (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% (See at least Paragraphs 0016, 0049, and claim 1), and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) is/are the majority by mass in said wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate” would be the majority in the mixture).
López-Pozas Lanuza does not disclose the specific characteristic details of the wadding.
Fackler, a related prior art reference, discloses a wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge (See Figures, clearly illustrated) comprising a first portion having an open end and comprising a first recess arranged to receive a determined volume of projectile(s) (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 17 and contains elements 16), and a second portion having an open end and comprising a second recess arranged to receive a determined volume of at least one propellant charge (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 20 and contains element 15), wherein said wadding is a single plastic piece (See at least Column 2 Lines 39-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of López-Pozas Lanuza to make the container wad from an at least partially biodegradable material with the noted teachings of Fackler to provide a container wad with the specific characteristics. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to formulate the wad element in an appropriate shape suitable for use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of polymer(s) is greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 90% (See at least Paragraphs 0033 and 0039).
Regarding claim 3, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent at least 70% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 5, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the wadding has a density ranging from 1.20 g/cm3 to 1.50 g/cm3 (See at least Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 6, Fackler further discloses wherein the first portion is a skirt comprising longitudinal slots (29, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 7, Fackler further discloses wherein the first portion comprises a proximal portion and a distal portion, and wherein the thickness of the wall of the first portion is decreasing from its proximal portion towards its distal portion (See at least Figure 1, clearly illustrated and at least Column 3 Lines 42-54 & Column 4 Lines 27-34).
Regarding claim 8, Fackler further discloses wherein the wadding comprises a separation wall separating a bottom of the first portion of the wadding from a bottom of the second portion of the wadding (19, See at least Figure 1, clearly illustrated), said separation wall having a thickness (eint) greater than or equal to 2.00 mm (See at least Column 3 Lines 52-54, 0.090 inches = 2.286 mm).
Regarding claim 9, Fackler further discloses wherein the height (H1) of the first portion is greater than or equal to 5 times the height (H2) of the second portion (See at least Figure 1, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Fackler discloses a shot or bullet cartridge comprising: a wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge (See Figures, clearly illustrated); wherein the wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge comprises a first portion having an open end and comprising a first recess arranged to receive a determined volume of projectile(s) (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 17 and contains elements 16), and a second portion having an open end and comprising a second recess arranged to receive a determined volume of at least one propellant charge (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 20 and contains element 15), wherein said wadding is a single plastic piece (See at least Column 2 Lines 39-46).
Fackler does not disclose the specific material of the wadding and that the wadding is at least partially biodegradable.
López-Pozas Lanuza, a related prior art reference, discloses an at least partially biodegradable wadding (See at least Abstract) wherein said wadding comprises one or more polymer(s) including one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein said wadding comprises calcium carbonate (See at least Paragraph 0040), wherein the mass fraction of said one or more polymer(s) in said wadding is greater than or equal to 70% (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% (See at least Paragraphs 0016, 0049, and claim 1), and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) is/are the majority by mass in said wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate” would be the majority in the mixture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Fackler to provide a container wad with the noted teachings of López-Pozas Lanuza to make the container wad from an at least partially biodegradable material. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to reduce environmental contamination as taught by López-Pozas Lanuza and/or to utilize an appropriate material for the shot container as indicated by Fackler with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, López-Pozas Lanuza discloses an at least partially biodegradable wadding (See at least Abstract) wherein said wadding comprises one or more polymer(s) including one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein said wadding comprises calcium carbonate (See at least Paragraph 0040), wherein the mass fraction of said one or more polymer(s) in said wadding is greater than or equal to 70% (See at least Paragraph 0033), wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% (See at least Paragraphs 0016, 0049, and claim 1), and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) is/are the majority by mass in said wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate” would be the majority in the mixture).
López-Pozas Lanuza does not disclose the specific characteristic details of the wadding.
Fackler, a related prior art reference, discloses a shot or bullet cartridge comprising: a wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge (See Figures, clearly illustrated); wherein the wadding for a shot or bullet cartridge comprises a first portion having an open end and comprising a first recess arranged to receive a determined volume of projectile(s) (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 17 and contains elements 16), and a second portion having an open end and comprising a second recess arranged to receive a determined volume of at least one propellant charge (See at least Figure 1, Generally indicated by reference numeral 20 and contains element 15), wherein said wadding is a single plastic piece (See at least Column 2 Lines 39-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of López-Pozas Lanuza to make the container wad from an at least partially biodegradable material with the noted teachings of Fackler to provide a container wad with the specific characteristics. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to formulate the wad element in an appropriate shape suitable for use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) has, or each have, a flexural modulus, measured using standard ISO 178:2019, less than or equal to 400 MPa. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) to have or each have a flexural modulus, measured using standard ISO 178:2019, less than or equal to 400 MPa, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific flexural modulus solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different range of flexural modulus.
Regarding claim 19, López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) has, or each have, a melt flow rate greater than or equal to 1 g/10 min and less than or equal to 10 g/10 min, measured at a temperature of 190*C, under a mass of 2.16 kg, and according to standard ISO 1133:2011. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) to have or each have, a melt flow rate greater than or equal to 1 g/10 min and less than or equal to 10 g/10 min, measured at a temperature of 190*C, under a mass of 2.16 kg, and according to standard ISO 1133:2011, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific melt flow rate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different range of melt flow rates.
Regarding claim 20, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% and less than to 30% (See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% and less than or equal to 20%, and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent(s) at least 70% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, this would include at least 70% by mass, and See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent(s) at least 80% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, this would include at least 80% by mass).
Regarding claim 23, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 9.5% and less than or equal to 20% (See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range).
Regarding claim 24, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% and less than or equal to 20% (See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range), and wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent(s) at least 70% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, this would include at least 70% by mass).
López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the calcium carbonate is a calcium carbonate comprising 40% to 70% by mass of particles for which D50 is less than or equal to 2 µm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the calcium carbonate be a calcium carbonate comprising 40% to 70% by mass of particles for which D50 is less than or equal to 2 µm, since applicant has not disclosed that the material sizing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a multitude of different particle sizes.
Regarding claim 25, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent(s) at least 80% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, this would include at least 80% by mass).
Regarding claim 26, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 6.5% and less than or equal to 20% (See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range), wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) represent(s) at least 80% by mass of the wadding (See at least Paragraph 0033, “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, this would include at least 80% by mass).
López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) has, or each have, a flexural modulus, measured using standard ISO 178:2019 higher than or equal to 100 MPa and less than or equal to 400 MPa. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide that the one or more polybutylene succinate polymer(s) have, or each have, a flexural modulus, measured using standard ISO 178:2019 higher than or equal to 100 MPa and less than or equal to 400 MPa, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific flexural modulus solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different range of flexural modulus.
Regarding claim 27, López-Pozas Lanuza further discloses wherein the mass fraction of calcium carbonate in said wadding is greater than or equal to 9.5% and less than or equal to 20% (See at least Claims 1 and 8, no more than 70% covers the claimed range).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over López-Pozas Lanuza in view of Fackler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of World Intellectual Property Organization Document WO 2018/229061 A1 by Pullega et al (Pullega).
Regarding claim 4, López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler does not disclose surface treated calcium carbonate.
Pullega, a related prior art refence, discloses wherein the calcium carbonate comprises calcium carbonate surface treated with a mixture of (poly)carboxylic acid(s) and/or one or more acid(s) anhydride(s) of said one or more (poly)carboxylic acids, and/or one or more salts of said one or more polycarboxylic acid(s) and/or one or more salts of said acid anhydride(s) (See at least Page 42 Lines 4-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of López-Pozas Lanuza as modified by Fackler above with the noted teachings of Pullega to surface treat the calcium carbonate. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to improve flowability of the calcium carbonate and to improve dispersion in the resulting product as taught by Pullega.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments that López-Pozas Lanuza does not disclose that the polybutylene succinate polymers are present as the majority component by mass in the wadding or that calcium carbonate is present in an amount greater that 6.5% and less than 30% by mass of the wadding, the examiner offers the following:
Paragraph 0033 states “Said biodegradable elastomer, preferably of vegetable origin, is preferably found in proportions of between 10% and 90% by weight with respect to the total weight of the material” would mean that “butylene polysuccinate” or “polybutylene succinate”, which is the biodegradable elastomer, could be present between 50% to 90% and would be the majority and meets the claimed limitations.
Paragraph 0016 has some ambiguity as indicated by the applicant; however, the reference should be considered for its teaching as a whole, and claims 1 and 8 taken together do not have the same ambiguity and clearly the amount of calcium carbonate can be present in the mixture within the specified percentage range.
Accordingly, the examiner maintains that López-Pozas Lanuza meets the claimed ranges, therefore, the rejections are maintained by the examiner.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It has been held that the mere fact that the references relied on by the Patent and Trademark Office fail to evince an appreciation of the problem identified and solved by applicant is not, standing alone, conclusive evidence of the nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter. The references may suggest doing what an applicant has done even though workers in the art were ignorant of the existence of the problem. In re Gershon, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights