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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
line 3, “the vacuum-formed PLA tableware” should say “the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware”
line 8, “above100⁰C” should say “above 100⁰C”
lines 9-10, “placing PLA tableware preform” should say “placing the PLA tableware preform”
line 11, “the closed container” should say “the temperature-adjustable closed container”
lines 11-12, “a constant temperature” should say “the constant temperature”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 3:
line 2, “the vacuum-formed tableware” should say “the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware”
line 4, “the preform” should say “the tableware preform”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 4:
line 2, “the vacuum-formed tableware” should say “the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware”
line 4, “the preform” should say “the tableware preform”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 5, line 2, “for PLA vacuum-formed tableware” should say “for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware” for claim language consistency.
Claim 6, line 3, “for PLA vacuum-formed tableware” should say “for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware” for claim language consistency.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “high temperature and high-pressure resistance” in line 10. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term renders the temperature and pressure resistance indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the carbon dioxide” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a cup lid product” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a cup lid” from line 2 or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the limitation is referring to the cup lid.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109354847 A; hereafter Wang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Waggoner (US 11850775 B2; hereafter Waggoner ‘775) and Xiong et al. (CN 111440423 A; hereafter Xiong; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for preparing a PLA thermoformed product ([0010-0011]), comprising the following steps:
(1) preparing a sheet ([0010]) from a raw material of the PLA thermoformed product ([0010, 0012]; melt blend polylactic acid), and preparing a preform from the sheet via thermoforming ([0010]; hot press the blend into sheets), the preform comprising PLA that is not completely crystallized ([0020]; inducing cold crystallization after molding, so the molded sheets are necessarily not completely crystallized);
and (2) subjecting the preform to carbon dioxide soaking treatment ([0020]; supercritical carbon dioxide foaming agent) at constant temperature and pressure ([0027]) to crystallize the uncrystallized PLA in the preform ([0020]; supercritical carbon dioxide induces cold crystallization);
wherein, a method of the carbon dioxide soaking treatment in step (2) comprises: placing the PLA preform in a temperature-adjustable closed container with high temperature and high-pressure resistance ([0027]; autoclave), injecting a carbon dioxide ([0020]; injecting supercritical carbon dioxide) into the temperature-adjustable closed container, and soaking at a constant temperature and under retained pressure ([0027]);
in step (2), a pressure retaining temperature is 35⁰C-100⁰C ([0027]; immersion temperature is 70-130⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05), a pressure retaining pressure is 4-13 MPa ([0027]; immersion pressure is 7-30MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05), and a pressure retaining time is 1-10 hours ([0027]); and the carbon dioxide is a supercritical carbon dioxide fluid ([0020]).
While Wang discloses the PLA molded product can be used with food packaging ([0004]) and the pressure is released quickly ([0027]), Wang does not explicitly disclose the PLA thermoformed product is a thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware, the sheet is prepared via extrusion using an extruder, a preform for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is prepared via vacuum forming, the PLA tableware product with a temperature resistance above 100⁰C, the pressure retaining time is 1-40 minutes and the pressure release speed is 5-45 MPa/s.
However, in the analogous art Waggoner ‘775 teaches a method of preparing a thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware (Col. 5, Ln. 46-54), wherein a sheet is prepared via extrusion using an extruder (Col. 6, Ln. 61-67), the sheet is thermoformed via vacuum forming (Col. 25, 5th ¶) and the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware has a temperature resistance above 100⁰C (Col. 26, 1st ¶; end product can withstand temperature of about 105⁰C). Waggoner ‘775 further teaches subjecting to carbon dioxide (Col. 11, 3rd ¶) saturation in a pressure vessel (Col. 9, 6th ¶) to induce crystallization (Col. 25, 5th ¶) at a temperature of 35⁰C-100⁰C (Col. 10, 2nd ¶; 8⁰C to 48⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) and a pressure of 4-13 MPa (Col. 10, 2nd ¶; 700 to 1500 psi = 4.82 to 10.34 MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) for a time of 1-40 minutes (Col. 10, 5th ¶; 20 minutes or less; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wang and Waggoner ‘775 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘775 to provide the PLA thermoformed product is a thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware, the sheet is prepared via extrusion using an extruder, a preform for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is prepared via vacuum forming, the PLA tableware product with a temperature resistance above 100⁰C and the pressure retaining time is 1-40 minutes. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of stronger, more fracture-resistant and temperature stable food service tableware (Waggoner ‘775 Col. 5, Ln. 46-54).
Wang, in view of Waggoner ‘775, does not explicitly disclose the pressure release speed is 5-45 MPa/s.
However, in the analogous art Xiong teaches a method for preparing a PLA molded product ([0016, 0023]), wherein a PLA preform ([0023]) is subject to supercritical carbon dioxide ([0023, 0059]) soaking treatment in a closed container ([0023]; sealed container) to induce crystallization at a temperature of 35⁰C-100⁰C ([0025]; 80⁰C to 170⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) and a pressure of 4-13 MPa ([0025]; 5MPa to 50MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) for 1-40 minutes ([0025]; 3 to 40 min), with a pressure relief speed of 5-45 MPa/s ([0026]; pressure relief rate is 5 to 30 MPa/s).
Wang and Xiong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang, in view of Waggoner ‘775, with the teachings of Xiong to provide the pressure release speed is 5-45 MPa/s. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the molded PLA tableware to be quickly expanded (Xiong [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang discloses the method for preparing the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware according to claim 1, wherein Wang further discloses a thickness of the sheet in step (1) is 0.35-1 mm ([0024]; thickness of the sheet is 1-3 mm; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Wang does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the tableware preform is 0.3-0.9 mm.
However, Waggoner ‘775 further teaches a thickness of the tableware preform is 0.3-0.9 mm (Col. 7, 5th ¶ to Col. 8, 1st ¶; sheet preform for food service product has thickness of about 0.015 in to about 0.02 in).
Wang and Waggoner ‘775 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘775 to provide a thickness of the tableware preform is 0.3-0.9 mm. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of thermoresistant PLA tableware with a greater variety of thicknesses.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang discloses the method for preparing the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware according to claim 1, wherein Wang further discloses the pressure retaining temperature is 65⁰C-95⁰C ([0027]; immersion temperature is 70-130⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) and the pressure retaining pressure is 10-13 MPa ([0027]; immersion pressure is 7-30MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Wang does not explicitly disclose the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is a dish and a density of a dish product relative to the tableware preform is reduced by 20%-50%.
However, Waggoner ‘775 further teaches the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is a dish (Col. 7, Ln. 63-65; food service plate) and a density of a dish product relative to the tableware preform is reduced by 20%-50% (Col. 19, Ln. 62 to Col. 20, Ln. 7; density is reduced by at least about 20%; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wang and Waggoner ‘775 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘775 to provide the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is a dish and a density of a dish product relative to the tableware preform is reduced by 20%-50%. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of stronger, more fracture-resistant and temperature stable food service tableware (Waggoner ‘775 Col. 5, Ln. 46-54).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang discloses the method for preparing the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware according to claim 1, wherein Wang further discloses the raw material for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware in step (1) comprises the following components by mass:
45%-80% of a major material ([0012]; 70-100 parts of polylactic acid; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05);
10%-40% of an auxiliary material ([0012]; 0.05-30 parts of biodegradable polyester; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05);
10%-35% of a filler ([0012]; 0.05-10 parts of foaming processing aid; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05);
and 0-5% of a modifier ([0019]; 0.01-10 parts of chain extender; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05);
wherein the major material is PLA ([0012]; polylactic acid);
the auxiliary material is PBAT, PBS or a blend of PBAT and PBS ([0016]; biodegradable polyester can be one or a combination of PBAT and PBS);
the filler is selected from any one or a combination of more than one of talc and calcium carbonate ([0018]; one or more of talc and calcium carbonate);
and the modifier is selected from any one or a combination of more than one of a nucleating agent ([0018]; inorganic nucleating agent) or a chain extender ([0019]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang discloses the method for preparing the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware according to claim 5.
Modified Wang does not explicitly disclose particles prepared by an extrusion blending and pelletizing process are used as the raw material for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware.
However, Waggoner ‘775 further teaches particles prepared by an extrusion blending and pelletizing process (Col. 6, 4th ¶ to Col. 7, 2nd ¶; melt blending pellets for extrusion) are used as the raw material for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware.
Wang and Waggoner ‘775 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘775 to provide particles prepared by an extrusion blending and pelletizing process are used as the raw material for the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). It is well-known in the art of plastic molding to prepare materials for molding by extrusion blending and pelletizing and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to prepare the raw materials in a simple and effective manner.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109354847 A; hereafter Wang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Waggoner (US 11850775 B2; hereafter Waggoner ‘775) and Xiong et al. (CN 111440423 A; hereafter Xiong; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Waggoner (US 11827003 B2; hereafter Waggoner ‘003).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang discloses the method for preparing the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware according to claim 1, wherein Wang further the pressure retaining pressure is 4-7 MPa ([0027]; immersion pressure is 7-30MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Wang does not explicitly disclose the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware is a cup lid, the pressure retaining temperature is 35⁰C-65⁰C and a density of a cup lid product relative to the tableware preform is changed by ± 1% or below; a shrinkage of the cup lid product is constant with a relative standard deviation of 0.5% or below when a sample diameter is below 100 mm, and the relative standard deviation is 1% or below when the same diameter is 100 mm or above.
However, Waggoner ‘775 further teaches subjecting to carbon dioxide (Col. 11, 3rd ¶) saturation in a pressure vessel (Col. 9, 6th ¶) to induce crystallization (Col. 25, 5th ¶) at a temperature of 35⁰C-65⁰C (Col. 10, 2nd ¶; 8⁰C to 48⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) and a pressure of 4-13 MPa (Col. 10, 2nd ¶; 700 to 1500 psi = 4.82 to 10.34 MPa; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05) for a time of 1-40 minutes (Col. 10, 5th ¶; 20 minutes or less; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wang and Waggoner ‘775 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘775 to provide the pressure retaining temperature is 35⁰C-65⁰C. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of stronger, more fracture-resistant and temperature stable food service tableware (Waggoner ‘775 Col. 5, Ln. 46-54).
Furthermore, in the analogous art Waggoner ‘003 teaches a method of preparing a thermoresistant PLA (Col. 3, 3rd ¶) thermoformed (Col. 5, 1st ¶) cup lid (Col. 12, 2nd ¶), wherein a sheet is prepared via extrusion using an extruder (Col. 13, 5th), the sheet is thermoformed (Col. 5, 1st ¶) and subject to carbon dioxide (Col. 4, 2nd ¶ of detailed description) saturation in a pressure vessel (Col. 4, 2nd ¶ of detailed description) to induce crystallization (Col. 6, 1st ¶).
Wang and Waggoner ‘003 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming PLA products by molding and carbon dioxide induced crystallization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wang with the teachings of Waggoner ‘003 to select a cup lid as the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the manufacture of cup lids capable of withstanding exposure to hot beverages (Col. 12, 2nd ¶).
Modified Wang teaches the same thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware as required by instant claim 1 as set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the thermoresistant PLA vacuum-formed tableware formed by the method of modified Wang is expected to have a density of a cup lid product relative to the tableware preform is changed by ± 1% or below; a shrinkage of the cup lid product is constant with a relative standard deviation of 0.5% or below when a sample diameter is below 100 mm, and the relative standard deviation is 1% or below when the same diameter is 100 mm or above. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (II). "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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights