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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plimmer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0259028).
Regarding claim 1: Plimmer discloses a composition (via abstract).
Plimmer may not suggest the exact claimed values or ranges of the used materials to be from 68% to 75%, preferably from 69% to 75% by weight of at least one rigid (co)polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene succinate, polylactide, polyhydroxyalkanoate, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 25% to 35% by weight of at least one flexible (co)polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene adipate terephthalate, poly(? -caprolactone) and copolymers of polybutylene succinate, relative to the total weight of the composition; nor from 0.2 to 5% and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of at least one hydrophobic additive selected from the group formed by behenamide, erucamide, stearamide and oleamide, relative to the total weight of the composition.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar structural composition. Therefore,, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another comprises from 68% to 75%, preferably from 69% to 75% by weight of at least one rigid (co)polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene succinate, polylactide, polyhydroxyalkanoate, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 25% to 35% by weight of at least one flexible (co)polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene adipate terephthalate, poly (caprolactone) and copolymers of polybutylene succinate, relative to the total weight of the composition; and from 0.2 to 5% and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of at least one hydrophobic additive selected from the group formed by behenamide, erucamide, stearamide and oleamide, relative to the total weight of the composition, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claim 2: Plimmer may not suggest the composition comprising, a rigid (co)polyesters: from 63% to 72% by weight of at least one polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene succinate and polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to the total weight of the composition, and from 3% to 7%, preferably from 4% to 6% by weight of polylactide relative to the total weight of the composition.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar structural composition. Therefore,, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another comprises a rigid (co)polyesters: from 63% to 72% by weight of at least one polyester selected from the group formed by polybutylene succinate and polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to the total weight of the composition, and from 3% to 7%, preferably from 4% to 6% by weight of polylactide relative to the total weight of the composition, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claims 3 & 4: Plimmer may not suggest the composition comprising, flexible polymer: from 25% to 30% by weight of poly(butylene succinate adipate) with respect to the total weight of said composition nor from 0 to 5%, and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of at least one vinyl polymer selected from the group formed from grafted or non-grafted polyvinyl acetate and non-grafted polyethylene vinyl acetate or grafted polyethylene vinyl acetate, preferably the vinyl polymer is polyvinyl acetate.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar structural composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another comprises a flexible polymer: from 25% to 30% by weight of poly(butylene succinate adipate) with respect to the total weight of said composition and/or from 0 to 5%, and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of at least one vinyl polymer selected from the group formed from grafted or non-grafted polyvinyl acetate and non-grafted polyethylene vinyl acetate or grafted polyethylene vinyl acetate, preferably the vinyl polymer is polyvinyl acetate, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claim 5 & 6: Plimmer may not suggest the exact composition with comprising from 0 to 10%, preferably from 0 to 5% of at least one additive chosen from plasticizers, slip agents, implementation aids, anti-blocking agents nor from 60 to 65% by weight of PBS, and from 3 to 7% of PLA, as rigid polymers, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 25 to 30 % by weight of PBSA as flexible polymer, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 0.5 to 2% by weight of behenamide relative to the total weight of the composition; from 0.2 to 5%, and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of polyvinyl acetate relative to the total weight.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar structural composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another comprises from 0 to 10%, preferably from 0 to 5% of at least one additive chosen from plasticizers, slip agents, implementation aids, anti-blocking agents and from 60 to 65% by weight of PBS, and from 3 to 7% of PLA, as rigid polymers, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 25 to 30 % by weight of PBSA as flexible polymer, relative to the total weight of the composition; from 0.5 to 2% by weight of behenamide relative to the total weight of the composition; from 0.2 to 5%, and preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight of polyvinyl acetate relative to the total weight, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claim 7: Plimmer may not suggest that the composition prepared from (co)polyesters of which at least 50% by weight are biobased as defined by the ASTM D6866-22 standard.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar structural composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another prepared from (co)polyesters of which at least 50% by weight are biobased as defined by the ASTM D6866-22 standard, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claim 8: a method comprising a step of extrusion blowing, see for example (paragraph 0001; “blown film/article”).
Regarding claims 9 & 10: a single-layer film comprising, preferably being constituted of, the composition or prepared by a method for preparing a single- layer film from the composition, see for example (paragraph 0046; via “The film may be monolayer or a multilayer”).
Plimmer may not suggest a step of extrusion blowing, preferably with a thickness ranging from 35.10-6 m to 40.10-6 m nor properties with a water vapor permeability ranging from 70 to 180 in g/(m^2.day), preferably less than 160 in g/(m^2.day), and in an even more preferred manner less than 110 in g/(m^2.day), the water vapor permeability being determined in accordance with the ASTM E96-22 standard, on films of 35.10-6 m thickness.
However, Plimmer discloses a similar step of making a layer film out of the composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Plimmer’s composition by another with a step of extrusion blowing, preferably with a thickness ranging from 35.10-6 m to 40.10-6 m and properties with a water vapor permeability ranging from 70 to 180 in g/(m^2.day), preferably less than 160 in g/(m^2.day), and in an even more preferred manner less than 110 in g/(m^2.day), the water vapor permeability being determined in accordance with the ASTM E96-22 standard, on films of 35.10-6 m thickness, since it has been held that a chemically equivalent compound and its values/ranges can be discovered by a routinely skill in the art with laboratory work to coming up with a specific range or value and a specific used material.
Regarding claim 11: Plimmer discloses an article comprising, preferably being constituted of, the single-layer film (paragraph 0046; The film may be monolayer or a multilayer”).
Regarding claim 12: Plimmer discloses that the article is a wicket bag, preferably intended for packaging bakery products, in particular sandwich bread, see for example (paragraph 0111; via “All samples of the high quality blown film shown in Table 5… which is below that of LLDPE but well within the needs of the packaging industry”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights