eDETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" “still more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation 150 to 300 micron of sheet thickness, and the claim also recites 180 and 200 microns of sheet thickness which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 also recites “mixing” to obtain a “sheet with thickness between 150 to 300 microns”. Claim as written is vague and indefinite as to how the thickness of the sheet is obtained via mixing. Applicant is urged to clarify this in the next action.
Claim 2 recites water content optionally 84.14% w/w, and other optional ranges for PVA, or cellulose-derived polymers. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Similar rejection applies for claim 3 and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art FMC CORP (WO 93/04120 A1) teach preparation of water-soluble, biodegradable packaging films from composition comprising: polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), corn starch, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and additives (see page 4, lines 14 to page 12 lines 30), mixing PVA with water, additives (polyethylene glycol, sodium lauryl sulfate and a germicide), corn starch and CMC at 60 oC; heating at 60 oC until a homogenous blend is obtained; pouring the mixture onto an aluminum plate placed in an adjustable micrometer film applicator with a spreader blade; spreading the mixture across the aluminum plate; drying an oven at 50 oC for 25 minutes (see page 4 lines 14 to page 12 lines 30). However, FMC CORP fails to teach drying of at least 2 days as claimed in addition to having a thickness between 150 to 300 microns, which is improvement over the prior art for the purpose of achieving final strength in the film .
Al-Harthi et al. (US 2018/0179345 A1) pertains to PVA/graphene films and drying at room temperature for 6 days. However, Al-Harthi differs materially from claimed invention as such it involves graphene and different composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0206997 A2 – PVA and carbon nanotube composite blend films.
US 2016/0022599 A1 – pertains to different packaging materials and materially different composition and drying methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights