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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2011/0135863 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0172680 A1) and Raimer (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, 4 and 7-8, Li teaches a PLA and PHA blend, where the PHA can be poly-3-hydroxypropionate, (poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) or (PH3P)) and the PLA can be a PLA copolymer. (Abstract; Paragraph 0034-0035)
Li does not specifically teach the PLA is a poly(lactic acid-b-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer recited in 4-7
Choi teaches a poly(lactic acid-b-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 to 350,000, having the formula of structure 1, and having a m of 11 to 1988 and a n of 10-3527, which overlap the claimed range. (Abstract; Paragraph 0013). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Choi teaches this PLA block copolymer provides the advantage of improved impact resistance over conventional PLA. (Paragraph 0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the PLA block copolymer of Choi in as the PLA in the composition of Li for improved impact resistance.
Choi does not specifically teach the lactide is ring opening polymerized to the P3HP.
Raimer teaches this ring opening polymerization for lactide and P3HP leads to faster conversion with shorter reaction time. (Page 1447, 1454). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form the polymer using the ring-opening method to form the claimed block copolymer of Choi in order to have a faster conversion with shorter reaction time.
Li, Choi, and Raimer do not specifically teach the material has a haze of less than 4.0.
However, given that Li, Choi, and Raimer teaches the same composition as recited in the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art the composition of Li, Choi, and Raimer would inherently have the same properties, including haze, as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Li teaches PH3P can comprise 5 to about 95 wt% of the polymer composition. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Li, Choi, and Raimer do not specifically teach the material has a haze of less than 4.0.
However, given that Li, Choi, and Raimer teaches the same composition as recited in the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art the block copolymer of Li, Choi, and Raimer would inherently have the same properties, including UV transmittance, as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Li teaches making a film of the claimed composition. (Paragraph 0023, 0074).
Regarding Claim 11-12, Li, Choi, and Raimer do not specifically teach the film has a haze of less than 4.0 and positional standard deviation
However, given that Li, Choi, and Raimer teaches the same composition and structure as recited in the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art the composition of Li, Choi, and Raimer would inherently have the same properties, including haze and positional standard deviation, as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, Li teaches a film of 17 mils can be made. (Paragraph 0074).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1013 as being unpatentable over Li, Choi and Raimer, in view of Zhang et al. (US 2007/0083019 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, Li, Choi and Raimer do not teach the molecular weight of the P3HP.
Zhang teaches P3HP having high molecular weight of 1 to 250 kg/mol. (Paragraph 0049). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Zhang teaches these high molecular weight P3HP have attractive mechanical properties including rigidity and tensile strength. (Paragraph 0003). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a P3HP with the claimed molecular weight in Li for the improved mechanical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not discuss keeping the vinyl group ratio in the end group to be 40 mol% or less for P3HP polymer.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights