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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 13 September 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there is no copy of the foreign references. The cited U.S. references have been considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doi et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,917,002 A).
Regarding claim 1, Doi et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 56-60; col. 5, lines 24-56; col. 6, lines 55-57; Table 3) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 56-60 (process of making oriented poly(3-hydroxybutanoic acid) film) of Doi et al), including (a) stretching the film web under conditions where a film surface maximum temperature is within a temperature range represented by: Tm – 60 ≤ film surface temperature (°C) ≤ Tm -5, wherein the Tm is a melting point (°C) of the film web, and the film web has a crystallinity of more than 40% to 80% (see col. 5, lines 24-46 (film is oriented in a drawing machine using an oil bath heated at 155-180°C (melting point of poly(3-hydroxybutanoic acid) is 175°C)) and col. 6, lines 55-57 (film has crystallinity of 75% or more) of Doi et al).
Regarding claim 2, see col. 5, lines 24-46 (film is oriented in a drawing machine using an oil bath heated at 155-180°C (melting point of poly(3-hydroxybutanoic acid) is 175°C)) and col. 6, lines 55-57 (film has crystallinity of 75% or more) of Doi et al.
Regarding claim 3, see Table 3 (PHB (1), non-oriented, crystallinity of 60-80%) of Doi et al.
Regarding claim 12, see col. 5, lines 47-56 (draw ratio of 2-10) of Doi et al.
Regarding claim 17, see col. 5, lines 24-46 (orienting in two directions (biaxial orientation)) of Doi et al.
Regarding claim 18, see col. 5, lines 24-46 (film is oriented in a drawing machine using an oil bath heated at 155-180°C (melting point of poly(3-hydroxybutanoic acid) is 175°C)) of Doi et al.
Regarding claim 19, see col. 5, lines 24-46 (biaxial orientation is performed either sequentially or simultaneously) of Doi et al.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-8, 11, 13, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,917,002 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Waldock (WO 97/22459 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Doi et al does not teach (1) during stretching, the film web is heated to control the film surface maximum temperature within the temperature range. Waldock (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 13 and 23-25; page 1, line 33 to page 2, line 3; page 3, lines 6-7; page 4, lines 5-7 and 9-12; Figure 1) teaches a process (see page 1, line 13 (process of producing an oriented PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) article (e.g., film)) and page 3, lines 6-7 (PHA containing only m=3 units is referred to a PHB (i.e., poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)) of Waldock), wherein during stretching, the film web is heated to control the film surface maximum temperature within the temperature range (see page 1, lines 23-24 (the temperature profile of the article (e.g., film) is controlled) of Waldock), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the film surface maximum temperature within a temperature range in the process of Doi et al in view of Waldock in order to afford the required extent of stretch (see page 1, lines 23-24 of Waldock).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, see page 1, lines 24-25 (temperature profile is controlled by a current of gas, especially air, at a suitable temperature and flow rate) of Waldock.
Regarding claim 11, see Figure 1, page 4, lines 9-12 (from roll 24, preform passes over fast roll 26, through nip of fast rolls 28, 30 for stretching in the machine direction and transversely stretched after rolls 32, 34 by a stenter) of Waldock.
Regarding claim 13, see Figure 1, page 4, lines 5-7 (extruder 10, tubular die 12, coaxial air supply 14) of Waldock.
Regarding claim 14, see page 1, line 33 to page 2, line 3 (preform is a tube, extents of stretch are 5-10 (machine direction) and 2-5 (transverse direction)) of Waldock.
Regarding claim 21, see page 3, lines 6-7 (PHA containing m=33 and m=4 units is the copolymer PHBV (i.e., poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate)) of Waldock.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,917,002 A) in combination with Waldock (WO 97/22439 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-14, 17-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Funk et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0325854 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Doi et al (in combination with Waldock) does not teach (1) preheating the film web to a temperature lower than the film surface maximum temperature before performing non-contact heating. Funk et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0016] and [0048]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0003] (method of forming a film from at least one biodegradable polymer) of Funk et al), including preheating the film web to a temperature lower than the film surface maximum temperature before performing non-contact heating (see paragraph [0048] (some of the rolls of the MDO 100 may be preheat rolls) of Funk et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preheat the film web to a temperature lower than the film surface maximum temperature before performing non-contact heating in the process of Doi et al (in combination with Waldock) in view of Funk et al in order to provide a film from a material that degrades from the action of naturally occurring microorganisms (see paragraph [0016] of Funk et al).
Regarding claim 10, see paragraph [0048] (some of the rolls of the MDO 100 may be preheat rolls) of Funk et al.
Regarding claim 16, see paragraph [0016] (poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydrohexanoate)) of Funk et al.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,917,002 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0061583 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Doi et al does not teach (1) producing a film by T-die extrusion molding. Kawamura et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0025] and [0026]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0025] (methods for molding) of Kawamura et al), including producing a film by T-die extrusion molding (see paragraph [0025] (molding includes a casting process and a melt extrusion process using a T-die) of Kawamura et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a T-die extrusion molding process (as taught by Kawamura et al) for a casting process (as taught by Doi et al and Kawamura et al) because the substitution of one known element for another known element would have yielded predictable results (e.g., the manufacture of a film) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights