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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/27/2024; 2/21/2025; 9/19/2025; 1/30/2026; and 4/3/2026 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed 5/17/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaPray et al (US 20217/0002184).
LaPray teaches a biodegradable resin composition comprising:
(A) a polyolefin-based compound;
(B) a biodegradable resin;
(C) an aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound; and
(D) a modified polyolefin-based compound,
wherein (A) the polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 7 to 30 wt%
with respect to a total of (A) to (D) (example 963 of Table 13) and
a total of (C) the aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound (“Ecoflex”) and (D) the modified polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 45 to 80 wt% with respect to the total of (A) to (D).
With regards to claim 2, LaPray teaches the polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 9 to 20 wt% with respect to the total of (A) to (D) (example 963 of Table 13)
With regards to claim 3, LaPray teaches the total of (C) the aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound and (D) the modified polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 55 to 80 wt% with respect to the total of (A) to (D) (example 963 of Table 13) .
With regards to claim 4, LaPray teaches the aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound, and the modified polyolefin-based compound are included in a weight ratio of 5:1 to 15:1 in a mixture (example 963 of Table 13) .
With regards to claim 5, LaPray teaches (A), (B), (C), and (D) are included in amounts of 7 to 30 wt%, 20 to 35 wt%, 35 to 70 wt%, and 1 to 10 wt%, respectively, with respect to the total of (A) to (D) (example 963 of Table 13).
With regards to claim 6, LaPray teaches the polyolefin-based compound which includes one or more selected from the group consisting of very-low-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, medium-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, and a combination thereof(example 963 of Table 13).
With regards to claim 8, LaPray teaches the biodegradable resin includes one or more selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic starch (example 963 of Table 13)
With regards to claim 10, LaPray teaches the thermoplastic starch further includes a plasticizer (0035; 0114).
With regards to claim 11, LaPray teaches the use of EcoFlex which is an aliphatic- aromatic copolyester-based compound comprising of poly(butylene adipate/terephthalate).
With regards to claim 12, LaPray teaches the modified polyolefin-based compound may be a maleic anhydride-grafted polyethylene (example 963 of Table 13).
With regards to claim 13, LaPray teaches the total of (A) to (D) included in the biodegradable resin composition is 95 wt% or more (example 963 of Table 13).
With regards to claim 14, LaPray teaches the biodegradable resin composition or LaPray is understood to inherently have a biodegradability of 60% or more relative to the biodegradability of cellulose based on 45 days, as measured in accordance with ISO 14855-1 since it is compositionally identical to the claimed composition.
With regards to claim 15, LaPray teaches a biodegradable resin molded article manufactured by molding the biodegradable resin composition according to any one of claim to claim 1 (0022).
With regards to claim 16, LaPray teaches the biodegradable resin molded article has a drop impact strength of 190 to 1000 g measured in accordance with ASTM D1790 (claim 1).
With regards to claim 17, LaPray teaches a method of manufacturing a biodegradable resin molded article, comprising the steps of: (1) mixing (A) a polyolefin-based compound, (B) a biodegradable resin, (C) an aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound, and (D) a modified polyolefin-based compound so that (A) the polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 7 to 30 wt% with respect to a total of (A) to (D), and a total of (C) the aliphatic-aromatic copolyester-based compound and (D) the modified polyolefin-based compound is included in an amount of 45 to 80 wt% with respect to the total of (A) to (D), and performing melt blending to obtain a biodegradable resin composition; and (2) molding the biodegradable resin composition (see examples).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPray et al (US 20217/0002184), as applied to claims above, and further in view of CN 110511544 (herein referred to as CN).
LaPray is relied upon as above, but does not teach the polyethylene should comprise a polyolefin-based compound has a melt index (MI) of 0.1 to 50 g/10 min measured at 190 °C and a 2.16 kg load in accordance with ASTM D1238, a density of 0.900 g/cm³ to 0.930 g/cm³ measured in accordance with ASTM D1505, and a weight-average molecular weight of 50,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. However, CN teaches a biodegradable composition comprising starch, aliphatic-aromatic polyester, a polyolefin. However, CN teaches polyethylene possessing said properties are desirably used in such compositions as said polyethylene are commercially available molding grade compositions. Thus, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a polyethylene possessing the claimed properties as the polyethylene taught in LaPray as CN teaches such polyethylene are commercial grade materials useful in such compositions. The examiner takes the position the claimed molecular weight is inherent to the disclosed melt viscosity since molecular weight and melt viscosity are inversely proportional.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPray et al (US 20217/0002184), as applied to claims above, and further in view of WO2014/151211 (herein referred to as Broyless).
LaPray is relied upon as above but does not teach that the starch should have the claimed average particle size. However, Broyless teaches a composition comprising starch, a polyolefin, and a modified polyolefin. Broyless teaches that the particle size of the starch utilized should be below 2um in order to ensure it does not interfere with processing (page 8, liens 15+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the size of the starch particles to below 2um in order to ensure the compositions is extrudable/processable.
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 7, 9, and 14 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. With regards to claims 1 and 9, said claims are held to be indefinite because the claims fail to disclose how to measure the claimed particle diameter, and molecular weight, respectively. With regards to claim 14, said claim is held to be indefinite because the test is not described in sufficient detail to allow one skilled in the art to duplicate the invention; specifically, the claim fails to set forth details of the comparative cellulose film in sufficient detail to allow one to make the requisite comparison.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
