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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-11 and 13-17 in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of producing a biodegradable polymer film, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 38 does not explain further maleic anhydride-based copolymer instead repeats paragraph 37
Paragraphs 49-50 and 52-54 and 68-70 are inconsistent about the type of test, first paragraphs 49-50 and 53-54 have test as ASTM 882 and 52 and paragraphs 68-70 have test as ASTM D882
Paragraph 80 says multiplayer instead of multilayer
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 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.
Claim 6 does not set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention or clearly point out the metes and bounds. In claim 1, which claim 6 ultimately depends, it is stated that the PLA segment comprises about 50 wt.% to about 99 wt.% of the PLA, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend. Claim 6 contradicts claim 1, claiming that the PLA segment comprises from about 0 wt.% to about 80 wt.% compostable polyester segment, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend. This not only does not limit claim 1 and further widens the range of the wt.% of PLA but opens confusion about what constitutes the invention. It goes against claim 1, that has stated that PLA is at the very least about 50 wt.% of the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend, which it cannot maintain, if the compostable polyester segment is greater than 50 wt.%. It is not clear what applicant intended as their invention. Possible interpretations made by the examiner are:
For the purposes of further examination, claim 6 is examined based on claim 1 and as described in one embodiment in specification. Claim 1 states that the PLA of the PLA-block copolymer blend is in a combination of about 50 wt.% to about 99 wt.% based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend. While claim 6 claims the compostable polyester is from about 0 wt.% to about 80 wt.%, this does not follow claim 1. Therefore, the compostable polyester will be examined as in the composition of about 0 wt.% to less than about 50 wt.% as stated on page 9, paragraph 34, lines 1-2 of the instant application specification.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri et al (US-20210253849-A1) in view of Dou et al (US-20100323196-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Giri et al teaches a biodegradable polymer film (see e.g. PLA is a commercially biodegradable polymer in paragraph 2) wherein at least one layer is a composition comprising:
a polylactic acid (PLA)-block copolymer blend comprising a PLA segment and a flexible polymer segment (see e.g. PLA-copolymer having PLA end group segments and difunctional flexible middle segments comprising polysiloxane (Si-O-Si) backbone in paragraphs 19 and 32), wherein the PLA segment comprises about 50 wt% to about 99 wt% PLA, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend (see e.g. poly(lactic acid) is from 80 wt.% to about 99.4 wt.% in paragraph 13).
Giri et al discloses that PLA is a biodegradable and biobased polymer (see e.g. PLA is a biobased and biodegradable polymer in paragraph 2) that can be further combined with biodegradable polymers such as polyesters allowing it to be compostable (see e.g. blending it with other flexible and biodegradable polymers, and/or compostable polyesters to be used both as compatibilizers, plasticizers, and toughening agents, without compromising PLA’s biodegradability in paragraph 2).
Giri et al also does not teach the film is multi-layered, that it is biaxially stretched, or about it biodegrading an average of at least 40 % within 75 days at the temperature of 25°C to about 30°C.
Dou et al teaches of a biodegradable polymer film (biodegradable BOPLA film in paragraph 17) comprising one or more layers, wherein at least one layer is a composition (see e.g. multi-layer biaxially oriented laminate film including a first layer being an amorphous PLA heat seal resin with a modifying resin and a second layer of crystalline PLA resin in paragraphs 18-20) comprising:
Dou et al teaches a polylactic acid (PLA)-block copolymer blend comprising a PLA segment, wherein the PLA segment comprises about 50 wt% to about 99 wt% PLA, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend (see e.g. the PLA layer of the first layer, comprises 50 wt.% of amorphous PLA with it being preferably more in paragraph 20),
Dou et al teaches the biodegradable polymer film is biaxially stretched (see e.g. biodegradable BOPLA film in paragraph 17 that is stretched in the machine and transverse direction in paragraph 31), and
Dou et al teaches an average biodegradation of at least 40% biodegradation within about 75 days at a temperature in a range of about 25 °C to about 30 °C (see e.g. biodegradability was measured in accordance with ASTM D6400-99 where the temperature is at 58°C in a compost medium for 180 days with the preferred time for complete degradation being 105 days in paragraph 89. Additionally, poly (butylene adipate-co-butylene-terephthalate (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL) are both possible modifiers to the PLA and both have a biodegradation mineralization of 100% in 60 days in accordance with ASTM 5336 in Paragraphs 47 and 48).
Dou et al fails to teach the biodegradability test at 25-28°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the temperature of compost conditions since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed biodegradability at 25-30°C is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the temperature of compost conditions motivated by the desire to have composting occur at room temperature and therefore allowing it to be done at home instead of a large-scale factory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Giri et al and Dou et al are analogous in the art because they are improving the properties of poly(lactic acid) blends and films while maintaining biodegradability. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify polylactic acid copolymer composition taught in Giri et al to be a multi layered film as taught in Dou et al because polylactic acid films commonly used in packaging with high clarity and high gloss (see e.g. polylactic acid films are transparent with high clarity and high gloss, which is desirable in packaging applications due to printing graphics with high visual appeal and high resolution in paragraph 5 in Dou et al). It would have been obvious to biaxially orient the multilayer film because biaxially stretching reduces internal stress and minimizes shrinkage (see e.g. stretching in the transverse direction at 75-90C and a maximum width reduces internal stresses and minimizes shrinkage in paragraph 31 of Dou et al). Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the biodegradable ability of the biaxially stretched multilayer film taught by Dou because after PLA films used for packaging have served their purpose, they are discarded, and contributing to the growing piles of waste and pollution (see e.g. plastic waste ends up in landfills where they take years to decompose or in oceans affecting marine life. There is only one viable option to reduce accumulation with the use of compostable plastics in paragraph 2 of Giri et al). It would be obvious to make the degradation more accessible and practical for the average household.
Giri et al in view of Dou et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the Dart impact strength or tensile modulus. It is reasonable to conclude that the property is inherent to the combination of Giri et al in view of Dou et al. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Applicant teaches a biaxially stretched biodegradable film with a PLA block copolymer with a flexible polymer segment in the proportion of 50 wt.% to 99 wt.% PLA. The PLA block copolymer optionally has a compostable polyester segment that results in physical properties of 450 g to about 700 g of an average Dart impact Strength, an average tensile modulus of about 2,500 MPa to about 4,500 MPa along the machine and transverse direction, and/or an average biodegradation of at least 40 % biodegradation within 75 days.
Giri et al in view of Dou et al teaches of a biaxially stretched biodegradable film (see e.g. ) with a PLA block copolymer with a flexible polymer segment (see e.g. PLA-copolymer having PLA end group segments and difunctional flexible middle segments comprising polysiloxane (Si-O-Si) backbone in paragraphs 19 and 32 of Giri et al) with a PLA proportion of 50 wt.% to 99 wt. % (see e.g. poly(lactic acid) is from 80 wt.% to about 99.4 wt.% in paragraph 13 of Giri et al) with an additional compostable polyester segment (see e.g. in the first, heat sealable layer, biodegradable/compostable materials are added as modifiers in paragraphs 20-21 in Dou et al) that would result in an average biodegradation of 40 % within 75 days (see e.g. biodegradability was measured in accordance with ASTM D6400-99 where the temperature is at 58°C in a compost medium for 180 days with the preferred time for complete degradation being 105 days in paragraph 89. Additionally, poly (butylene adipate-co-butylene-terephthalate (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL) are both possible modifiers to the PLA and both have a biodegradation mineralization of 100% in 60 days in accordance with ASTM 5336 in Paragraphs 47 and 48 of Dou et al).
Giri et al in view of Dou et al do not teach of a comparable impact strength test (see e.g. closest being Giri et al only teaching the Izod impact strength from about 5 kJ/m^2 to about 30 kJ/m^2, in paragraph 10 of Giri et al). Where the Izod impact strength is a very different test than the Dart impact strength. Giri et al discloses the possibility for PLA to have a tensile strength of 60 MPa and a modulus of 3,400 MPa (PLA has good mechanical properties including tensile strength (above about 60 MPa) and modulus (about 3.4 GPa) within the range of polystyrene (PS) in paragraph 2). While Giri et al does not teach this specifically in reference to their invention, Giri et al does teach the average modulus of 1,444-1,965 MPa along the machine or transverse direction (see e.g. young’s modulus of 1,444-1,965 MPa in paragraph 40 and Table 4 of Giri et al). This measurement also differs from the ASTM D882 test used in the application but is somewhat comparable.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 4: Giri et al (US-11485852-B2) Published 2022
Giri et al discloses that PLA is a biodegradable and biobased polymer (see e.g. PLA is a biobased and biodegradable polymer in paragraph 2 of Giri et al) that can be further combined with biodegradable polymers such as polyesters allowing it to be compostable (see e.g. blending it with other flexible and biodegradable polymers, and/or compostable polyesters to be used both as compatibilizers, plasticizers, and toughening agents, without compromising PLA’s biodegradability in paragraph 2 of Giri et al). Giri et al teaches that the PLA composition can be blended with a compostable polyester that can further strengthen and improve the mechanical properties (see e.g. PLA is blended with high toughness compostable polyesters which is common practice to improve its mechanical performance without compromising its biodegradability, giving substantial improvements to performance properties in paragraph 2 of Giri et al).
Dou et al teaches the combination of PLA and compostable polyester (see e.g. amorphous PLA layer, a minority amount of a modifying resin including poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) (PBAT) or polycaprolactone (PCL) or blends thereof in paragraph 20 of Dou et al), with the film being biaxially stretched, further reducing internal stresses (see e.g. stretching in the transverse direction at 75-90C and a maximum width reduces internal stresses and minimizes shrinkage in paragraph 31 of Dou et al).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Giri et al teaches the PLA-block copolymer blend is in the form of an A-B-A triblock copolymer, wherein A is the PLA segment and B is the flexible polymer segment (see e.g.
homopolymer and PLA-copolymer having PLA end group segments and a difunctional flexible middle segment comprising a polysiloxane (Si-O-Si) backbone in paragraph 13, and Figures 1 and 2, and abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
731
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 2: Giri et al (US-11485852-B2) Published in 2022
Regarding Claim 3, Giri et al does not teach polyester being added but does teach it is fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to overcome the disadvantages of PLA and improve its mechanical performance without compromising biodegradability (see e.g. fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to improve mechanical performance in paragraph 2).
Dou et al teaches the PLA-block copolymer blend further comprises a compostable polyester segment (see e.g. in the first, heat sealable layer, biodegradable/compostable materials are added as modifiers in paragraphs 20-21).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the PLA-block copolymer of PLA and flexible polymer segment taught in Giri et al with a compostable polyester taught in Dou et al because, as Giri et al discloses, that adding a high toughness compostable polyester can improve mechanical performance, despite the flexible polymer segment also providing increased performance properties (see e.g. fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to improve mechanical performance in paragraph 2). It would be obvious that using more techniques and materials known to improve mechanical properties would allow the mechanical properties of the material or film to continue to improve.
Regarding Claim 5, Giri et al does not teach adding a compostable polyester, but does disclose known compostable polyesters with high toughness (see e.g. PLA can be blended with high toughness compostable polyesters such as poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT), and other compostable polyesters such poly(butylene succinate) (PBS), poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate) (PBSA), and polycaprolactone (PCL) in paragraph 2).
Dou et al teaches the compostable polyester segment is selected from:
polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polycaprolactone (PCL), polyhydroxy alkanoates (PHAs), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA), polybutylene sebacate (PBSe), and polybutylene sebacate terephthalate (PBSeT) (see e.g. compostable modifying resins may include poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate (PBAT), polycaprolactone (PCL), or blends in paragraph 20 and additional combinations are poly(butylene succinate adipate) (PBSA), polybutylene succinate (PBS) or others with compostability/biodegradability amorphous behavior in paragraph 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the theoretical types of polyester that could be added taught in Giri et al with the polyester types that are used in Dou et al because as Giri et al discloses, adding a high toughness compostable polyester can improve mechanical performance, despite the flexible polymer segment also providing increased performance properties (see e.g. fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to improve mechanical performance in paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Giri et al does not teach of a percentage of the polyester being added but does teach it is fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to overcome the disadvantages of PLA and improve its mechanical performance without compromising biodegradability (see e.g. fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to improve mechanical performance in paragraph 2).
Dou et al teaches the PLA-block copolymer blend comprises from about 0 wt% to about 80 wt% compostable polyester segment, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend (see e.g. where amount of modifying resin should be in the amount of 5-30 wt.% and more preferably 10-20 wt.% in paragraph 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the PLA-block copolymer of PLA and flexible polymer segment taught in Giri et al with a compostable polyester composition taught in Dou et al because, as Giri et al discloses, that adding a high toughness compostable polyester can improve mechanical performance, despite the flexible polymer segment also providing increased performance properties (see e.g. fairly common practice to add a high toughness compostable polyester to PLA to improve mechanical performance in paragraph 2). It would be obvious that using more techniques and materials known to improve mechanical properties would allow the mechanical properties of the material or film to continue to improve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Giri et al teaches that there is about 0 wt% to about 50 wt% flexible polymer segment, based on the total weight of the PLA-block copolymer blend (see e.g. difunctional flexible polysiloxane polymer in said PLA-copolymer is from about 0.6 wt.% to about 20 wt.% based on the total weight of the PLA-copolymer in paragraphs 13 and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8, Giri et al teaches the flexible polymer segment (see e.g. difunctional flexible segment in paragraphs 12-13) is selected from:
polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polycaprolactone (PCL), polyhydroxy alkanoates (PHAs), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA), polybutylene sebacate (PBSe), polybutylene sebacate terephthalate (PBSeT), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and linear polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (see e.g. polysiloxane in paragraphs 12-13, where one example of a polysiloxane is a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as seen in paragraphs 5, 13, 30, and 32 and in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Giri et al teaches the linear polydimethylsiloxane has two ends, each end terminated with a group selected from an amine (NH2), a hydroxyl (OH), and an epoxide (see e.g. polysiloxane backbone said middle segment, independently has two functional end groups comprising an amine or hydroxyl in paragraphs 5 and 30-32).
Regarding Claim 10, Giri et al teaches that the flexible polymer segment has a weight average molecular weight in a range of about 2,000 g/mol to about 600,000 g/mol (see e.g. polysiloxane segment has weight average molecular weight of from about 2,000 to about 50,000 g/mol in paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11, Giri et al does not teach a multilayered film.
Dou et al teaches that the biodegradable polymer film has a PLA skin layer (second PLA resin containing core layer in paragraphs 18 and 23) on a top surface and/or or a bottom surface of the biodegradable polymer film (see e.g. where the second layer/core is located on one side of the sealable amorphous PLA first layer and may serve as a base layer in paragraph 18), wherein the PLA skin layer comprises PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second PLA resin layer has a crystalline polylactic acid homopolymer in paragraph 23).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core PLA block copolymer film taught in Giri et al with the multilayered film with a PLA homopolymer skin as taught in Dou et al because the additional layer on the top and/or bottom surface of the film allows for a higher strength in the form of bulk layer (see e.g. core or base layer provides bulk strength of the laminate film, especially in it being crystalline corresponding with higher tensile strength in paragraphs 18-19 in Dou et al).
Regarding Claim 14. Giri et al does not teach the thickness of the film.
Dou et al teaches that the total thickness of the biodegradable polymer film is in a range of about 10 µm to about 100 µm (see e.g. first/heat sealable resin layer is 0.5-5 µm after biaxial orientation and the core/base/second PLA layer has a thickness of up to 10-100 µm but preferably 15-20 µm in paragraph 50 and in another embodiment the total thickness of the film after biaxial orientation was 20 µm in paragraph 61).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film as taught in Giri et al with the thickness of the multilayered film taught in Dou et al because the range of 10-100 micrometers is the thickness of most packaging, so that the packaging is light weight, nonobstructive, and provides the customer with the best experience, often being used as a lamination for decoration (see e.g. used in packaging applications and decoration such as printing graphics in paragraph 5 of Dou et al). Additionally, thickness is impacted by additional beneficial embodiments in the skin layer such as inorganic antiblock particles that lower the coefficient of friction and aid winding and machinability. The amount that can be added depends on the typical particle size and the final thickness of the film layer (see e.g. antiblock component such as silicas can be added to aid in machinability and winding and to lower coefficient of friction properties. Suitable amounts range from 0.03% to 0.5% by weight of layer, typical particle size in diameter, and depending on the final thickness of the layers in paragraphs 23-24 of Dou et al). Due to the increased skin layer thickness from beneficial inclusions it would be obvious that the overall/total thickness would be increased as a result of the skin layer(s) having an additional, increased thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, Giri et al teaches some uses for PLA (see e.g. PLA widely used for bags, cutlery, and containers in paragraph 2). Giri et al also teaches a film (see e.g. samples were made of copolymer for FTIR spectra testing in paragraph 26).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri et al (US-20210253849-A1) in view of Dou et al (US-20100323196-A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shinoda et al (US-5747637-A).
Regarding Claim 4. Giri et al teaches that the PLA-block copolymer blend is in the form of an A-B-A triblock copolymer, wherein A is the PLA segment and B is the flexible polymer segment (see e.g.
homopolymer and PLA-copolymer having PLA end group segments and a difunctional flexible middle segment comprising a polysiloxane (Si-O-Si) backbone in paragraph 13, and Figures 1 and 2, and abstract).
Dou et al teaches that aliphatic copolyesters and copolymers with PCL, PBH, and/or compostable polyesters can be beneficial but does not specify they would be in a triblock orientation.
Neither Giri et al nor Dou et al teach of the PLA-block copolymer being a triblock copolymer with the flexible polymer segment being between the PLA segment and the compostable polyester segment.
Shinoda et al teaches of a PLA-block copolymer blend is an A-B-C triblock copolymer, wherein A is the PLA segment, and B is the flexible polymer segment, and C is the compostable polyester segment (see e.g. a bioabsorbable ternary block copolymer consisting of (A) polylactic acid segment, (B) poly(epsilon-caprolactone) segment, and (C) polyglycolic acid segment to increase mechanical strength and flexibility while allowing the segment to be biodegradable in abstract and in a ABC-type formation in 9:61-67).
Giri et al, in view of Dou et al and Shinoda et al are analogous in the art because all of them are seeking to improve the properties of a biodegradable PLA copolymer. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the block copolymer of a PLA segment and flexible polymer segment with an added compostable polyester taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al with the specific copolymer ABC-type order because it helps balance the mechanical properties of strength and flexibility (see e.g. when ABC-type block copolymer becomes difficult to obtain, it is difficult to balance strength, flexibility, and other desired properties in 4:35-38 of Shinoda et al).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to change the biodegradable polyester, polyglycolic acid segment taught in Shinoda et al, to another compostable polyester with a lower melting point so that it would be able to compost in a home environment of 25-30°C.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri et al (US-20210253849-A1) in view of Dou et al (US-20100323196-A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stoclet (Strain-induced structural evolution of Poly(l-lactide) and Poly(d-lactide) blends, Polymer, vol 99, 2016, pages 231-239).
Regarding Claim 13. Giri et al does not teach a multilayered film or the compositions of L-lactide content.
Dou et al teaches that the PLA skin layer comprises a L-lactide content greater than the D-lactide of the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second PLA layer has a L-lactic acid composition of 90-100 wt.% with the D-lactic acid having 0-10 wt.% with an optional amorphous PLA amount with a greater value of L-lactic acid, but D-lactic acid being greater than 10 wt.% in paragraph 23). Dou et al fails to directly teach within the range of about 50 wt% to about 88 wt% L-lactide content, based on the total weight of the PLA homopolymer. While L-lactic acid units and L-lactide content is proportional (2:1), Dou et al does not explicitly teach the overlapping range of 50-88 wt.%, instead only indicating that D-lactic acid can be greater than 10 wt.%.
Stoclet teaches that the PLA skin layer comprises an L-lactide content of about 50 wt% to about 88 wt%, based on the total weight of the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. poly(l-lactide) (PLLA) and poly(d-lactide) (PDLA) were studied in two variations. Of 50 wt% to 70 wt% PLLA with there being 50 wt% and 30 wt% PDLA respectively. PLLA and PDLA homopolymers were also studied. The two compositions were referred to as PLA50 and PLA70 on page 232, Experimental).
Giri et al in view of Dou et al and Stoclet are analogous in the art because all of them are seeking to improve the properties of a biodegradable PLA copolymer. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core PLA block copolymer and the PLA homopolymer skin taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al with the proportion of L-Lactide as taught in Stoclet because the PLA50 and PLA70 had an increased modulus compared to the PDLA and PLLA homopolymer PLA (see Young’s modulus of the blends (PLA50 and PLA70) around 2.5 GPa is slightly higher than the homopolymers (PLLA and PDLA) of 2.0 GPa on page 233, under Results and in Figure 3d in Stoclet).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3b: Stoclet (Strain-induced structural evolution of Poly(l-lactide) and Poly(d-lactide) blends, Polymer, vol 99, 2016, pages 231-239), Published 2016
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri et al (US-20210253849-A1) in view of Dou et al (US-20100323196-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stoclet (Strain-induced structural evolution of Poly(l-lactide) and Poly(d-lactide) blends, Polymer, vol 99, 2016, pages 231-239) and Ambroise et al (US-20210213719-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Giri et al does not teach multiple layers.
Dou et al teaches that at least one layer is a core layer (see e.g. the PLA layer of the first layer/heat sealable layer in paragraph 20), and the biodegradable polymer film further comprises:
Dou et al teaches a PLA skin layer positioned on a surface of the core layer (see e.g. second layer is on one side of sealable amorphous PLA layer in paragraph 18), wherein the PLA skin layer comprises PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second PLA resin layer has a crystalline polylactic acid homopolymer in paragraph 23), and the PLA skin layer comprises a L-lactide content greater than the D-lactide of the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second PLA layer has a L-lactic acid composition of 90-100 wt.% with the D-lactic acid having 0-10 wt.% with an optional amorphous PLA amount with a greater value of L-lactic acid, but D-lactic acid being greater than 10 wt.% in paragraph 23),
Dou et al teaches that the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second PLA resin layer has a crystalline polylactic acid homopolymer in paragraph 23) has a weight average molecular weight in a range of about 100,000 g/mol to about 200,000 g/mol (see e.g. polylactide homopolymer brands Natureworks® Ingeo™ are preferred for the core/base/second layer having a molecular weight of 100,000 to 200,000 g/mol in paragraph 38).
Giri and Dou et al does not teach directly within the second PLA skin layer comprises about 50 wt% to about 88 wt% L-Lactide content, based on the total weight of the second PLA homopolymer.
Stoclet teaches that the PLA skin layer comprises an L-lactide content of about 50 wt% to about 88 wt%, based on the total weight of the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. poly(l-lactide) (PLLA) and poly(d-lactide) (PDLA) were studied in two variations. Of 50 wt% to 70 wt% PLLA with there being 50 wt% and 30 wt% PDLA respectively. PLLA and PDLA homopolymers were also studied. The two compositions were referred to as PLA50 and PLA70 on page 232, Experimental).
Giri in view of Dou et al and Stoclet do not teach a PLA skin layer positioned specifically on a top surface of the core layer.
Ambroise et al teaches that a PLA skin layer positioned on a top surface of the core layer (see e.g. resultant structure metallized layer/skin layer/optional tie layer/core/optional tie layer/skin layer/metallized layer in paragraph 41 where the skin layers surround the core on the top and bottom).
Giri et al and Dou et al are analogous in the art because they are improving the properties of poly(lactic acid) blends and films while maintaining biodegradability.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify polylactic acid copolymer composition taught in Giri et al to be a multi layered film as taught in Dou et al because polylactic acid films commonly used in packaging with high clarity and high gloss (see e.g. polylactic acid films are transparent with high clarity and high gloss, which is desirable in packaging applications due to printing graphics with high visual appeal and high resolution in paragraph 5 in Dou et al). It would have been obvious to biaxially orient the multilayer film because biaxially stretching reduces internal stress and minimizes shrinkage (see e.g. stretching in the transverse direction at 75-90C and a maximum width reduces internal stresses and minimizes shrinkage in paragraph 31 of Dou et al).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the multilayered PLA copolymer blend taught in Giri et al to include homopolymer PLA skin layers that have the specific molecular weight taught in Dou et al because it of the type of brands available and the how crystallinity is preferable (see e.g. polylactide homopolymer brands Natureworks® Ingeo™ offer the molar weight of 100,000-200,000 g/mol and more preferred crystalline PLA resin is more suitable in paragraph 38 of Dou et al).
Giri et al in view of Dou et al and Stoclet are analogous in the art because all of them are seeking to improve the properties of a biodegradable PLA copolymer. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core PLA block copolymer and the PLA homopolymer skin taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al with the proportion of L-Lactide as taught in Stoclet because the PLA50 and PLA70 had an increased modulus compared to the PDLA and PLLA homopolymer PLA (see Young’s modulus of the blends (PLA50 and PLA70) around 2.5 GPa is slightly higher than the homopolymers (PLLA and PDLA) of 2.0 GPa on page 233, under Results and in Figure 3d in Stoclet).
Giri et al and Dou et al in view of Ambroise are analogous because they depict different ways to use PLA specifically in biaxially oriented films which require increased tensile strength and flexibility. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three BOPA layers as taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al and Stoclet with the orientation of top and bottom surface of the core layer as taught in Ambroise et al because the more layers, the more support and by extension tensile strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 16, Giri et al does not teach additional layers.
Dou et al teaches the PLA skin layer includes is a first PLA skin layer comprising a first PLA homopolymer (see e.g. second layer is on one side of sealable amorphous PLA layer in paragraph 18) and the biodegradable polymer film further comprises a second PLA skin layer (see e.g. third layer/second PLA resin-containing core layer, which can be amorphous or crystalline (for this embodiment crystalline) and resemble either layers (such as the core/second layer) in paragraph 22) ;
Dou et al teaches that the second PLA skin layer comprises a second PLA homopolymer (see e.g. third layer/second PLA resin-containing core layer, which can be amorphous or crystalline (for this embodiment crystalline) and resemble either layers (such as the core/second layer) in paragraph 22) wherein, and the PLA skin layer comprises PLA homopolymer (see e.g. can resemble the core/base/second PLA layer in paragraph 22, meaning it will have a L-lactic acid units composition of 90-100 wt.% with the D-lactic acid units having 0-10 wt.% with an optional amorphous PLA amount with a greater value of L-lactic acid, but D-lactic acid units being greater than 10 wt.% in paragraph 23), and
Dou et al teaches that the second PLA homopolymer (see e.g. third layer/second PLA resin-containing core layer, which can be amorphous or crystalline (for this embodiment crystalline) and resemble either layers (such as the core/second layer) in paragraph 22) has a weight average molecular weight in a range of about 100,000 g/mol to about 200,000 g/mol (see e.g. polylactide homopolymer brands Natureworks® Ingeo™ are preferred for the core/base/second layer having a molecular weight of 100,000 to 200,000 g/mol in paragraph 38).
Giri in view of Dou et al does not teach directly within the second PLA skin layer comprises about 50 wt% to about 88 wt% L-Lactide content, based on the total weight of the second PLA homopolymer and does not teach the second skin layer being positioned at the bottom.
Stoclet teaches that the PLA skin layer comprises an L-lactide content of about 50 wt% to about 88 wt%, based on the total weight of the PLA homopolymer (see e.g. poly(l-lactide) (PLLA) and poly(d-lactide) (PDLA) were studied in two variations. Of 50 wt% to 70 wt% PLLA with there being 50 wt% and 30 wt% PDLA respectively. PLLA and PDLA homopolymers were also studied. The two compositions were referred to as PLA50 and PLA70 on page 232, Experimental).
Giri, in view of Dou et al and Stoclet, do not teach a PLA skin layer positioned specifically on a top surface of the core layer or does not teach a second skin layer being positioned at the bottom.
Ambroise et al teaches that a PLA skin layer positioned on a top surface of the core layer (see e.g. resultant structure metallized layer/skin layer/optional tie layer/core/optional tie layer/skin layer/metallized layer in paragraph 41 where the skin layers surround the core on the top and bottom).
Giri et al and Dou et al are analogous in the art because they are improving the properties of poly(lactic acid) blends and films while maintaining biodegradability. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify polylactic acid copolymer composition taught in Giri et al to be a multi layered film as taught in Dou et al because polylactic acid films commonly used in packaging with high clarity and high gloss (see e.g. polylactic acid films are transparent with high clarity and high gloss, which is desirable in packaging applications due to printing graphics with high visual appeal and high resolution in paragraph 5 in Dou et al). It would have been obvious to biaxially orient the multilayer film because biaxially stretching reduces internal stress and minimizes shrinkage (see e.g. stretching in the transverse direction at 75-90C and a maximum width reduces internal stresses and minimizes shrinkage in paragraph 31 of Dou et al).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the multilayered PLA copolymer blend taught in Giri et al to include homopolymer PLA skin layers that have the specific molecular weight taught in Dou et al because it of the type of brands available and the how crystallinity is preferable (see e.g. polylactide homopolymer brands Natureworks® Ingeo™ offer the molar weight of 100,000-200,000 g/mol and more preferred crystalline PLA resin is more suitable in paragraph 38 of Dou et al).
Giri et al in view of Dou et al and Stoclet are analogous in the art because all of them are seeking to improve the properties of a biodegradable PLA copolymer. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core PLA block copolymer and the PLA homopolymer skin taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al with the proportion of L-Lactide as taught in Stoclet because the PLA50 and PLA70 had an increased modulus compared to the PDLA and PLLA homopolymer PLA (see Young’s modulus of the blends (PLA50 and PLA70) around 2.5 GPa is slightly higher than the homopolymers (PLLA and PDLA) of 2.0 GPa on page 233, under Results and in Figure 3d in Stoclet).
Giri et al and Dou et al in view of Ambroise are analogous because they depict different ways to use PLA specifically in biaxially oriented films which require increased tensile strength and flexibility. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three BOPA layers as taught in Giri et al in view of Dou et al and Stoclet with the orientation of top and bottom surface of the core layer as taught in Ambroise et al because the more layers, the more support and by extension tensile strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Adding an additional skin layer is obvious under the court’s findings in regard to duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI). The courts found In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected product.
Additional References
Additional references that teach similar material are Wu et al (CN-104292782-A), Yun et al (CN-111961348-A), and Lee et al (US-5747637-A) that disclose the initial polylactic acid copolymer blend. Additionally, Goldberg et al (US-5085629-A) and Yosimura et al (US-20050001349-A1) discloses additional l-lactide compositions and additional motivations for using polyesters, PLA, and a greater l-lactide composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights