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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/12/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/11/2024; 3/4/2026; and 8/25/2026 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/11/2024 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim(WO 2009/014313) in view of Noda (US 6,808,795).
Kim teaches a biodegradable biaxially oriented film (page2), which a first layer comprising a polylactic acid based polymer (herein to read on the claimed “first composition”), and a second resin based on an aromatic polyester-based resin. The outermost layers of the laminate preferably comprise the first resin, the polylactic acid (see page 4). Said outermost layers are understood to read on the claimed first outer layer and the second outer layer each of which “comprise the first composition.” The core of the laminate comprises a multilayer structure in which a first resin layer and a second resin layer are alternately laminated (see abstract; example 1).
Kim is relied upon as above. Specifically, Kim teaches the second composition should be a biodegradable polyester but does not teach the second composition should comprise a polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer. However, Noda teaches biodegradable laminate comprising layers of polylactic aid and polyhydroxyalkanoates (abstract). Nola teaches the resulting laminates have improved material properties including hardness/softness, flexibility, toughness, ductility, processability, and permeability (see Summary of the Invention). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize polyhydroxyalkanoate as the second resin composition of the laminate disclosed in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been that Noda teaches laminates comprising layers of polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate exhibit improved hardness/softness, flexibility, toughness, ductility, processability, and permeability.
With regards to the limitations of claim 1 stating “wherein the content of the polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer is 20% by weight or more based on the total weight of the first composition and the second composition contained in the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the core layer, “ the limitation of claim 6 that “the content of the first composition is 30% by weight to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the first composition and the second composition contained in the biodegradable biaxially oriented film,” and the limitation of claim 7 requiring “wherein the content of the polylactic acid-based polymer is 20% by weight to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the first composition and the second composition contained in the biodegradable biaxially oriented film.” Kim teaches that the thickness ratio of the first composition layers to the second composition layers may be 2:1 (see examples). At such a ratio, the films of Kim are understood to read on the claimed weight limitations of claims 1, 6, and 7 since the first composition layers will comprise approximately 67% of the film and the second resin layers will comprise approximately 33%.
With regards to claim 2, Kim teaches the core layer has a laminated structure of 10 layers or more (example 1).
With regards to claim 9, Noda teaches the polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer comprises a 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) repeat unit (col 4, lines 1+)
With regards to claim 12, Kim further teaches a process for preparing a biodegradable biaxially oriented film, which comprises preparing a first composition comprising a polylactic acid-based polymer and a second composition respectively; melt-extruding the first composition and the second composition, respectively, to obtain a sheet in which a resin layer comprising the first composition and a resin layer comprising the second composition are alternately laminated; and biaxially stretching and heat-setting the laminated sheet to obtain a biaxially oriented film (See example 1)
With regards to claim 13, Kim teaches the outermost layers of the laminate preferably comprise the first resin, the polylactic acid (see page 4). Said outermost layers are understood to read on the claimed first outer layer and the second outer layer each of which “comprise the first composition.”
With regards to claim 14, Kim is relied upon as above but does not teach the melt-extrusion temperature of the first composition and the melt-extrusion temperature of the second composition are the same. However, Noda teaches It is important in such processes that the melt temperatures of the materials do not differ too greatly; otherwise flow instabilities can result in the die leading to poor control of layer thickness distribution in the multilayer film. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the difference in the melt extrusion temperatures of the first and second compositions in order to avoid flow instabilities and poor control of layer thickness.
Claims 3 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (WO 2009/014313) in view of Noda et al (US 6,808,795), as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP 2004-82512 (herein referred to as JP)
With regards to claims 3 and 4, Kim is relied upon as above but does not teach the polylactic acid composition may further comprise a polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer. However, JP teaches adding a polyhydroxyalkanoate to a polylactic acid composition in amounts of 50-15% improves the properties of the film and make it similar to OPP, resulting in superb heat resistance and durability to humidity/heat (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to blend a polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer into the polylactic acid layers of the composite film disclosed in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have bene to improve the processability, heat resistance, and durability of the film. Furthermore, with regards to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer blended into the polylactic aid layers of the composite film disclosed in Kim in order to obtain the desired processability, heat resistance, and durability of the film.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (WO 2009/014313) in view of Noda et al (US 6,808,795), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2009/0148713)
Kim teaches the first composition should comprise polylactic acid but does not teach the polylactic acid-based polymer comprises D-lactic acid in an amount of 1% by mole to 12% by mole. However, Lee teaches polylactic acid for biaxially oriented biodegradable films should have a D-lactic acid value of 1-10 wt% (0021). The degree of crystallinity, crystallization rate, metaling point, and melt processability characteristics of the film are determined by the presence of said D-lactic acid residuals interrupting the long sequences of the structure (0043). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a polylactic acid with a D-lactic acid value below 12wt% in order to control the degree of crystallinity, crystallization rate, metaling point, and melt processability of the layer.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (WO 2009/014313) in view of Noda et al (US 6,808,795), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kann et al (US 10,669,417)
Said references are relied upon as above but does not teach that the polyhydroxyalkanoate-based polymer further comprises at least one additional repeat unit selected from the group consisting of 3-hydroxyhexanoate (3HH), 3-hydroxyvalerate (3HV), and 3- hydroxypropionate (3HP), or that said monomer should be present in amounts of 10% by mole to 20% by mole. However, Kann teaches the PHA polymers may be copolymerized with 3-hydroxy monomers (col 4, lines 55+) and that the amount of copolymer determines the physical properties of the copolymer including the glass transition temperature and crystallinity (col 4, lines 55+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to copolymerize the PHA with a 3-hydroxy monomers and to optimize the amount of copolymer present. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the physical properties of the copolymer including the glass transition temperature and crystallinity.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights