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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the single inventive concept is not a biodegradable net article, but rather a process of preparation. This is not found persuasive because Group II, claims 24 and 26-27 recite a biodegradable net article. Claims 24 and 26-27 recite this article with product by process limitations, but the scope of the claims encompass an article. The article of Group II is recited as a product by process, which includes the scope of any article produced by another process that cannot be distinguished from an article produced by the recited process. See MPEP 2113. Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on the unpersuasive argument noted above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24 and 26-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected biodegradable net article, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the extrusion means and various structures that enable the recited method steps must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-3, 6-12, 16-17, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederblad (US 2005/0183329) in view of Shelton (WO 2005/023955), Chiyonobu (JP 2004107406), and Esteve (US 2019/0069561).
Regarding claim 1, Cederblad discloses a process for the preparation of a biodegradable net article (abstract, claim 14), said process comprising the following steps:
a. compounding at least one biodegradable polymer and at least one additive to obtain pellets of a biodegradable polymer composition ([0070]);
b. extruding said dried pellets using a means for extrusion at a second predetermined temperature to obtain a plurality of individually extruded strands forming an extruded net in the form of a net sleeve ([0070]), wherein said means for extrusion comprises a plurality of die members having a plurality of orifices ([0072]);
c. quenching said extruded net at a third predetermined temperature to obtain a quenched net ([0010]);
d. stretching said quenched net at a predetermined stretch ratio in at least one fluid bath having a fourth predetermined temperature to obtain a stretched net (stretching is at least performed within a fluid bath in the sense that an area containing air constitutes a fluid bath in that it is not done in a vacuum, [0083]).
Cederblad teaches compounding the biodegradable polymer composition, but does not disclose drying said pellets at a first predetermined temperature for a predetermined time period to obtain dried pellets.
However, in the same field of endeavor of extruding a biodegradable net (abstract), Shelton teaches drying said pellets at a first predetermined temperature for a predetermined time period to obtain dried pellets (compounding pellets are dried at a set temperature prior to usage, [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cederblad to dry the pellets as claimed because [0027] of Shelton teaches doing so to ensure a proper moisture content for later extrusion.
Cederblad and Shelton do not teach e. sealing said stretched net at a fifth predetermined temperature to obtain said biodegradable net article.
However, in the same field of endeavor of making a biodegradable resin net (title, abstract), Chiyonobu teaches e. sealing said stretched net at a fifth predetermined temperature to obtain said biodegradable net article (heat sealing to form a bag from the produced netting).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Cederblad to heat seal the stretched product in order to make a bag because Chiyonobu teaches doing so in order to make a bag as a product of a biodegradable resin net ([0007] of Cederblad teaches using the nets for bags).
Cederblad in view of Shelton and Chiyonbu teaches a method substantially as claimed. Cederblad in view of Shelton and Chiyonbu does not teach that the die members are grooved.
However, in the same field of endeavor of extrusion, Esteve teaches wherein the die members are grooved ([0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Cederblad for the die members to be grooved because [0022] of Esteve teaches that doing so creates a favorable appearance to the extruded strands.
Regarding claim 2, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises at least one copolymer of aromatic diacid ([0059]), aliphatic diacid ([0059]), and aliphatic diol ([0059]), at least one biodegradable polymer ([0059]), at least one filler, optionally at least one branching agent, optionally at least one thermal stabilizer and optionally at least one compatibility agent.
Cederblad teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cederbald does not disclose wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises at least one filler.
However, in the same field of endeavor of making a biodegradable resin net (title, abstract), Chiyonobu teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises at least one filler (talc, [0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Cederblad to include talc because [0014] of Chiyonobu teaches that a filler such as talc may be included without affecting the biodegradability of the obtained net.
Regarding claim 3, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises poly(adipate-co- terephthalate) (Cederblad [0060-61]), poly(lactic acid) (Cederblad abstract), and talc (following the same modification as that for claim 2 above, [0014] of Chiyonobu).
Cederblad teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cederblad does not disclose wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate).
However, in the same field of endeavor of extruding a biodegradable net (abstract), Shelton teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) (Ecoflex F BX7011, [0032-33]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cederblad to include poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate because [0060-61] of Cederblad teaches the broad category and [0032-33] of Shelton teaches such a biodegradable resin to produce lightweight, thin strand netting materials that can be processed with the same machines used for conventional plastics).
Regarding claim 6, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said extruding comprises extrusion of a plurality of strands by rotation of at least one grooved die member in one direction and joints formed by rotation of at least one grooved die member in the opposite direction (Cederblad [0072]), wherein said grooved die members are coaxial (Cederblad [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said forming of said extruded net comprises an opposite rotation of said grooved die members at a predetermined angular speed to extrude strands and sequentially join the strands to form said net sleeve (inherently this rotation will be at some angular speed, Cederblad [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said predetermined angular speed is in the range of 125 rad/sec to 252 rad/sec (at least an overlapping range, Cederblad [0072], see MPEP 2144.05; additionally, [0015] of Chiyonobu teaches the number of rotations are not particularly limited and can be adjusted accordingly for the net being made).
Regarding claim 9, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said die members are driven using a motor having a frequency in the range of 25 Hz to 40 Hz (inherently there is a motor driving the rotation at least at an overlapping range, Cederblad [0072], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05; additionally, [0015] of Chiyonobu teaches the number of rotations are not particularly limited and can be adjusted accordingly for the net being made).
Regarding claim 10, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said plurality of orifices is in the range of 40 to 80 (Cederblad [0072], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05; any difference would be a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04; additionally, [0015] of Chiyonobu teaches a large number of holes).
Regarding claim 11, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said plurality of orifices is 55 (Cederblad [0072], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05; any difference would be a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said individually extruded stand has a thickness in the range of 50 microns to 200 microns (1-300 mils, Cederblad [0078], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05; additionally, [0015] of Chiyonobu teaches the size of the die is not particularly limited and can be adjusted accordingly for the net being made).
Regarding claim 16, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said predetermined time period is in the range of 1 hour to 4 hours (as modified, 4 hours, Shelton [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said fluid bath is water bath (Cederblad [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said stretching is done in at least one direction selected from machine direction and transverse direction (Cederblad [0072]), and said predetermined stretch ratio is in the range of 1:1 to 1:6 (overlapping range of stretching, Cederblad [0072]).
Cederblad is not explicit as to the stretching ratio.
However, Shelton teaches said predetermined stretch ratio is in the range of 1:1 to 1:6 ([0026], claims 2 and 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the process of Cederblad to stretch to the ratios in [0026] of Shelton because Cederblad is silent as to the stretching ratio, Shelton is also teaching stretching an extruded biodegradable net (abstract), and [0026] and claims 2 and 4 of Shelton teaches this is an appropriate stretching ratio for this technical context, seen also as KSR rationale as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of a filler, a branching agent, a thermal stabilizer and a compatibilizer (as modified, talc is included as a filler in the modification for any of claims 2-3, Chiyonobu [0014]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederblad (US 2005/0183329) in view of Shelton (WO 2005/023955), Chiyonobu (JP 204107406), and Esteve (US 2019/0069561) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Itoh (US 2016/0152390).
Regarding claim 4, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition comprises: poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) having MFI (ASTM D 1238) in the range of 5 g/10 min to 8 g/10 min at 190 °C (poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) inherently has a melt flow index and is presumed to have at least an overlapping range, Cederblad [0060-61], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05), material density in the range of 1.21 g/cm3 to 1.25 g/cm3 (poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) inherently has a density and is presumed to have at least an overlapping range of density, Cederblad [0060-61], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05), and melting temperature in the range of 115 °C to 125 °C poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) inherently has a melting temperature and is presumed to have at least an overlapping range, Cederblad [0060-61], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05); poly(lactic acid) having MFI (ASTM D 1238) in the range of 4 to 8 g/10 min at 210 °C (overlapping range 4-12 g/10 min, Cederblad [0046]; see MPEP 2144.05; 4-8 g/10min, Cederblad [0057]), and material density in the range of 1.25 g/cm3 to 1.28 g/cm3 (poly lactic acid inherently has a density and is presumed to have at least an overlapping range of density, [0042], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05);
Cederblad as modified teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cederbald as modified is silent as to the particle size and bulk density of the talc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of preparing compositions for extrusion to make packaging products (abstract, [0050]), Itoh teaches talc having particle size 5.0 ± 0.5 μ D(50) (overlapping range 1-7 μm, [0043]; see MPEP 2144.05), and bulk density 375 ± 30 g/ltr (talc inherently has a bulk density; with an overlapping size range and no expressed difference in shape, presumed to have at least an overlapping bulk density, [0043], see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the process of Cederblad for the talc to have a D50 and bulk density as claimed because [0043] of Itoh teaches that talc, acting as an inorganic filler in a polymeric composition to be extruded, should have a median volume average particle size in an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05, and therefore also a bulk density within range.
Regarding claim 5, and incorporating the same modification as per claim 4, Cederblad as modified teaches wherein said biodegradable polymer composition is characterized by having: MFI (ASTM D 1238) in the range of 5 g/10 min to 7 g/10 min at 190 °C; material density in the range of 1.25 g/cm3 to 1.29 g/cm3; melting temperature in the range of 120 °C to 150 °C; glass transition temperature of 55.0 °C; and crystallization temperature of 91.5 °C (with the composition of each component all within an overlapping range (as per the modification for claim 4), the composition of said biodegradable polymer composition is presumed to have at least an overlapping range for each of the above properties, see MPEP 2112(III), 2144.05).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederblad (US 2005/0183329) in view of Shelton (WO 2005/023955), Chiyonobu (JP 204107406), and Esteve (US 2019/0069561) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malinowski (PL 217819).
Regarding claim 13, Cederblad as modified teaches said second predetermined temperature is in the range of 100 °C to 230 °C (melting for extrusion, Cederblad [0072], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05; additionally, [0015] of Chiyonobu teaches the set temperature and temperature of the resin during extrusion is not particularly limited and can be adjusted accordingly for the net being made), said third predetermined temperature is in the range of 10 °C to 30 °C (quenched in a water tank, Cederblad [0010], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05), said fourth predetermined temperature is in the range of 55 °C to 70 °C (120-175.degree. F (52-79 °C); Cederblad [0083] [0086] [0089], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05), and said fifth predetermined temperature is in the range of 200°C to 320 °C (as modified, heat sealing as taught by Chiyonobu teaches at least an overlapping range, and teaches the same function for a similar composition, see MPEP 2144.05).
Cederblad as modified teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cederblad as modified does not teach wherein said first predetermined temperature is in the range of 60 °C to 100 °C.
However, in the same field of endeavor of preparing polymer pellets for the production of extruded, biodegradable articles, Malinowski teaches wherein said first predetermined temperature is in the range of 60 °C to 100 °C (60-80°C for 4 hours, abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the process of Cederblad to dry the particles for the claimed range because the abstract of Malinowski teaches doing so to prepare the same polymer particles for the production of extruded, biodegradable articles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cederblad (US 7,326,659) teaches subject matter similar to Cederblad (US 2005/0183329), cited above. Itoh (US 10,414,565) teaches subject matter similar to Itoh (US 2016/0152390), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights