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 § 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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-31 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.
Considering Claim 1: Claim 1 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Considering Claim 6: Claim 6 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Considering Claim 12: Claim 12 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Considering Claim 21: Claim 21 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Considering Claim 22: Claim 22 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Considering Claim 27: Claim 27 recites a carbon footprint value, but does not specify the means of measuring the carbon footprint value. The original specification states that the carbon footprint is calculated with a Life Cycle Assessment. The life cycle assessment provides different values based on the parameters of the assessment, with different values provided, for instance, for cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessment (see appendix to applicant’s argument, where end of life assessment can increase the carbon footprint exponentially. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to the cradle to the grave carbon footprint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 19-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed compositions having the polyvinyl alcohol and water with the claimed melt index, molecular weight distribution, disintegration property and a carbon footprint of less than or equal to 2.0 kg CO2e per kg of polymer composition. The closest prior art of record is Johnson et al. (US Pat. 10,316,120), discussed previously. Johnson et al. does not teach the claimed polyvinyl alcohol obtained from sugarcane. As shown by the appendix attached to the applicant’s argument, petroleum based polyvinyl alcohol has a carbon footprint outside the claimed range. Further, the data shows that biogenic carbon does not necessarily have the claimed carbon footprint, as the biogenic carbon polyvinyl alcohol has a carbon footprint of 2.01 (Results). As the closest prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed composition with the claimed properties, and does not specify the means to achieve the claimed carbon footprint, the claimed composition would not have been obvious over the closest prior art of record.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights