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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 12/23/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (US 2020/0283600 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Shi teaches an algae based thermoplastic composition comprised of macroalgae – (corresponds to sargassum), the particle size being up to 200 microns, see [0081] – [0082] – (corresponds to a sargassum nanopowder, it being considered as no particular size of nanopowder is explicitly claimed; a particle size of 0.01 micron = 10 nanometer which is clearly contemplated by Shi’s range overlaps the claimed nanopowder; and corresponds to a sargassum-based polymer composite comprising a thermoplastic; and a sargassum nanopowder).
Regarding claim 17, Shi teaches a thermoplastic suitable for its composition is polylactic acid (PLA), see [0039].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2020/0283600 A1) as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15, Shi teaches the composition is suitable for plastic manufacturing, see at least [0033]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shi’s algae based thermoplastic composition as a filament for 3D printing since: Shi suggests the composition is suitable plastic manufacturing and when combined with thermoplastic resins allows for compounding at reduced costs without the need for plasticizers, see at least [0034].
Regarding claim 16, Shi teaches the algae is supplied in an amount of 10 wt% to 55 wt%, see [0020] - (construed as the sargassum-based polymer composite is in the range of greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt% sargassum). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the algae wt% that corresponds to the claimed range since Shi clearly contemplates such a range is suitable for using algae as a sustainable and renewable material for plastic manufacturing, see [0018], [0020]. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Shi teaches the algae particle size being up to 200 microns, see [0081]. It being considered a particle size of 0.05 micron = 50 nanometer which is clearly contemplated by Shi’s range and thus overlaps the claimed particle size – (corresponds to and overlaps the sargassum nanopowder has a smaller particle size of 50 nm). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the algae particle size to have a size of 0.05 microns which corresponds to the claimed range of 50 nm since Shi clearly contemplates such a range is suitable for using algae as a sustainable and renewable material for plastic manufacturing, see [0018], [0081]. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Shi teaches the algae biomass is at least 5% by weight of the composition and has a protein amount of 15% or greater, see abstract, [0083] - (construed and overlaps the sargassum nanopowder has a biomass content in the range of >0 wt - 30 wt%). Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the algae to have a biomass content of > 0 wt% to 30 wt% as claimed since Shi clearly contemplates such a range is suitable and desiarable for using algae as a sustainable and renewable material in a thermoplastic compoisition for plastic manufacturing, see [0018], [0081] – [0082]. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record:
Shi teaches a composition of algae and thermoplastic resin. However, the forming of the composition does not explicitly teach or reasonably suggest: “wetting an amount of PLA pellets in the range of >0 g to 150 g with an amount of isopropyl alcohol in the range of 10 - 15mL to obtain a mixture of wet PLA pellets; mixing an amount of the sargassum nanopowder particles to the mixture of wet PLA pellets to obtain one or more coated PLA pellets with at least >0 wt% of sargassum; and drying the coated PLA pellets” as claimed in independent claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights