RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2,5,11-24 and 31-39 are pending in the application, claims 16-21 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s election. Amendments to the claims filed on 03/12/2026 have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to claim 14 and 37, made of record in the office action mailed on 01/13/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 03/12/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claim 15, made of record in the office action mailed on 01/13/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 03/12/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claim 39, made of record in the office action mailed on 01/13/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 03/12/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11-13, 22 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,800,596) in view of Niles et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0348161).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The limitation “pellet” is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as referring to as a small chunk of a solid material which may have a rounded, cylindrical or ball-like shape.
Regarding claim 1, Vincent et al. discloses an insulation panel containing in the core a plurality of discrete puffed polysaccharide particulates defining a plurality of voids within the core. (Abstract and Fig. 1A). Within the voids formed by the puffed polysaccharides are fillers including cellulose filler and shredded paper filler (col. 13, lines 32-46) which would also meet the limitation of a “pellet” as claimed. (see also Fig. 1D which shows voids between the puffed polysaccharide particulates where the filler would be located as “pellets”). The combination filler with the discrete puffed polysaccharide particulate would therefore meet the limitation of “a plurality of pellets” as presently claimed wherein the puffed polysaccharide particulate described in Vincent et al. meets the limitation of “a first pellet” as claimed and the cellulose filler and shredded paper filler would meet the limitations of “some of the plurality of pellets are not expanded.
The puffed polysaccharide particulates have densities of 0.2-2.0 pounds per cubic foot (col. 12, lines 5-11), overlapping with the presently claimed range. The puffed particulates meet the limitation of “pellets” as presently claimed and comprise less than 95% by weight starch (col. 10, lines 54-59), 0-10% by weight water (col. 10, lines 48-49), plasticizers (col. 10, line 53) and additional additives such as colorants, rheology agents, water-soluble adhesives, nucleating agents and fillers. (col. 10, lines 50-55).
Vincent et al. does not disclose the content of plasticizer or additional additives.
Niles et al. teaches starch pellets which contain 30-95 wt% starch (par. [0057]), 10-30 wt% water (par. [0058], 2-30 wt% plasticizer (par. [0059]) and other additives in the form of elastomeric/lower melting point thermoplastic polymers, fibers, minerals and other additives in the range of 0 to 10 wt%. (par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use contents of plasticizers and additional additives in starch particulates of Vincent et al. in the same amounts as taught by Niles.
Using known elements to improve products in the same way to yield predictable results in prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that using plasticizers and additives in amounts as disclosed in Niles et al. would result in similar improved properties and effects provided by the materials when compounded in the starch composition of Vincent et al. due to the similarity in materials used (i.e. expanded, starch-based particles).
Regarding claim 2, Vincent et al. does not disclose that the starch is dent starch, chemically modified starch or high-amylose starch.
Niles et al. discloses that the pellets of their invention may use chemically modified starch. (par. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use chemically modified starch in the particulates of Vincent et al. in view of the teachings of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use chemically modified starch in view of the teachings of Niles et al. that the material would be suitably used in an expanded particulate starch-based composition such as the one disclosed in Vincent et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success in using chemically modified starch to obtain a material that can be predictably processed into the form of an expanded particulate material.
Regarding claim 5, the plasticizers disclosed in Vincent et al. include poly-vinyl alcohol (PVA). (col. 10, line 48).
Regarding claim 11, Vincent et al. discloses the use of starch, plasticizer, water and one or more other agents (col. 10, line 31-62) which would meet the narrower “consisting essentially of” transition phrase.
Regarding claim 12, Vincent et al. does not include fibers and cellulose may be replaced with starch. (col. 10, lines 31-35).
Vincent et al. discloses inclusions of PVA on the foamed particled.
Niles et al. teaches that in the alternative to polyvinyl alcohol, glycerin (i.e. glycerol) is known to be used as a plasticizer. (par. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glycerin instead of PVA as a plasticizer in the composition of Vincent et al. in view of the teachings of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace PVA in the starch composition of Vincent et al., thereby excluding the material completely, in view of the known interchangeability of using PVA and glycerin as taught by Niles et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Vincent et al. teaches inclusion of coloring agents, nucleating agents and cellulose. (col. 10, lines 31-62).
Regarding claim 22, Vincent et al. discloses that the particulates are included a panel having an insulation core on a substrate divided into several portions wherein the particulates form voids between them. (Abstract and Fig. 1). The panel includes a top and bottom barrier layer including (elements 20 and 30, Fig. 1A) which are made of porous paper and may include a laminant or coating to improve water resistance which helps protect the insulating core layer. (i.e. saturated with paper or with the laminant or coating, col. 3, lines 1-8col. 9, lines 10-20). The core of the panel is arranged such that the puffed polysaccharide particulates are positioned between two or more portions of the panel (against the top and bottom barrier, respectively, Fig. 1A-1D) and the voids are the result of the space between the pellets (Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 31, Vincent et al. in Fig. 1C teaches the following packaging material:
PNG
media_image1.png
899
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Vincent et al. disclose including less than 95% by weight starch (col. 10, lines 54-59).
Vincent et al. does not disclose the content of plasticizer.
Niles et al. teaches starch pellets which contain 2-30 wt% plasticizer (par. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use contents of plasticizers in starch particulates of Vincent et al. in the same amounts as taught by Niles.
Using known elements to improve products in the same way to yield predictable results in prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that using plasticizers and additives in amounts as disclosed in Niles et al. would result in similar improved properties and effects provided by the materials when compounded in the starch composition of Vincent et al. due to the similarity in materials used (i.e. expanded, starch-based particles).
Regarding claims 33-34, Vincent et al. discloses that the particulates have densities of 0.2-2.0 pounds per cubic foot (col. 12, lines 5-11), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 35, Vincent et al. does not disclose the inclusion of a blowing agent including the materials listed.
Niles et al. discloses inclusion of an elastomeric or thermoplastic polymer in the form of vinyl copolymer in the form of polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate (i.e. meeting the limitation of a blowing agent) in amounts of 0-10%. (par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include blowing agents in the starch composition of Vincent et al. in view of the teachings of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate these materials in the starch-based composition of Niles et al. to predictably modify the properties of the expanded starch based particulate materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,800,596) in view of Niles et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0348161), further in view of Catchmark et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0298319) (cited in the IDS filed on 05/08/2025) and Dehennau et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,160).
Vincent in view of Niles et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Vincent et al. does not disclose the particular materials used for the coloring agent, nucleating agent and blowing agent.
Niles et al. discloses inclusion of coloring agents such as lignin in amounts of 0-5%, nucleating agents such as talc in amount of 0-5%, an elastomeric or thermoplastic polymer in the form of vinyl copolymer in the form of polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate (i.e. meeting the limitation of a blowing agent) in amounts of 0-10% and a surfactant. (par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lignin, nucleating agents such as talc and blowing agents in the starch composition of Vincent et al. in view of the teachings of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate these materials in the starch-based composition of Niles et al. to predictably modify the properties of the expanded starch based particulate materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Vincent in view of Niles et al. does not teach inclusion of rheology agents or surfactants selected from the materials in claim 14.
Catchmark et al. discloses a method of making insoluble polysaccharide (i.e. starch) based foams by including an anionic and cationic polysaccharide, solvent and plasticizer in the starch composition. (Abstract). Catchmark et al. discloses it is known in the art to include compounds such as carboxymethyl cellulose and xantham gum in starch composite to improve the shape, texture and structure of the composite. (par. [0004]). Catchmark et al. uses these materials as well as guar gum and carrageenan for the same purpose (par. [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carboxmethyl cellulose and xanthum gum (equivalent to the claimed rheology agent and surfactant presently claimed) in the starch pellet composition of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these components in view of the known improved properties imparted to starches including these modifiers such as shape, texture and structure of the starch composite, which would be relevant to the applications of Vincent et al. for adjusting the desire shape of the puffed polysaccharide particulates.
Vincent in view of Niles and Catchmark et al. does not disclose the presence of yeast in the starch pellet.
Dehennau et al. discloses thermoformable compositions containing a starchy compound, a biodegradable polyester and a salt of hydroxycarboxylic acid. (Abstract). Dehennau et al. further discloses that it is known in the art to include 0.01 to 10% weight of a culture medium such as yeast extract in with hydrolysable/biodegradable polymers such as lactic, maleic and glycolic acid to improve the biodegradability thereof. (col. 4, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include yeast in the amount disclosed in Dehennau et al. in the starch pellet composition of Niles et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a yeast extract component in the starch pellets composition disclosed in Vincent et al. for the purpose of improving the biodegradability or the rate of degradation thereof for reducing the environmental impact of the starch pellets.
Regarding claim 15, the contents of each component are disclosed as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, above.
With respect to the content of the carboxymethyl cellulose and xanthan gum, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative amounts of these components relative to the starch pellet, balancing for the other components, based on the result effective variable teaching in Catchmark et al. of the components and their interaction with the starch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to balance the contents thereof with the overall optimal mechanical properties of the starch pellets. "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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). With respect to the claimed content of salt and cellulose, these are considered optional limitations since they do not define a lower end of the range and therefore include 0 weight percent.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,800,596) in view of Niles et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0348161), further in view of Catchmark et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0298319)
Vincent in view of Niles et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 36-37, Vincent in view of Niles et al. does not disclose rheology agents or surfactants selected from the materials in claims 36-37
Catchmark et al. discloses a method of making insoluble polysaccharide (i.e. starch) based foams by including an anionic and cationic polysaccharide, solvent and plasticizer in the starch composition. (Abstract). Catchmark et al. discloses it is known in the art to include compounds such as carboxymethyl cellulose and xantham gum in starch composite to improve the shape, texture and structure of the composite. (par. [0004]). Catchmark et al. uses these materials as well as guar gum and carrageenan for the same purpose (par. [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carboxmethyl cellulose and xanthum gum (equivalent to the claimed rheology agent and surfactant presently claimed) in the starch pellet composition of Vincent et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these components in view of the known improved properties imparted to starches including these modifiers such as shape, texture and structure of the starch composite, which would be relevant to the applications of Vincent et al. for adjusting the desire shape of the puffed polysaccharide particulates.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,800,596) in view of Niles et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0348161) and Catchmark et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0298319), further in view of Lohmann et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0202087).
Vincent in view of Niles and Catchmark et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 38, above.
Vincent in view of Niles and Catchmark et al. does not disclose the inclusion of calcium carbonate and dyes in the puffed polysaccharide particulate.
Lohmann et al. teaches a method for making expanded granular material foamed materials including a polyester material. (Abstract). Lohmann et al. teaches that calcium carbonate and dyes are known in the art to be included in the composition as compounded materials. (par. [0085]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium carbonate and a dye in the puffed polysaccharide particulate composition discloses in Vincent et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include calcium carbonate and a dye as they are well-known compounded ingredients for adjusting the aesthetic and physical properties of expandable polymer compositions used for making pellets or other particulate materials and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining predictable results by including it within the puffed polysaccharide particulate composition of Vincent.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11-13 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewcyk et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2025/0129225).
Regarding claim 1, Lewcyk et al. discloses a foam precursor which is made from an unmodified starch, polybutylene adipated-co-therephthalate (PBAT) and water. (Abstract) Lewcyk et al. discloses that the foam precursor may be provided in the form of unfoamed granules (i.e. “a plurality of pellets” as presently claimed) (par. [0022] and [0034]). The composition of the foam precursor includes 50-90% starch, 10-40% PBAT and 1-20% water. (par. [0024] and [0026]). Additional materials (equivalent to “one or more agents” as presently claimed) may be included in the composition in amounts of less than 15%. (par. [0024] and [0026]).
The foam precursor Lewcyk et al. teaches that PBAT functions as a plasticizer (par. [0022]) and therefore Lewcyk et al. discloses a foam precursor composition in the form of plurality of first unexpanded granule/pellets having a starch, plasticizer, water and additional agents as claimed with amounts overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lewcyk et al. further discloses that the unfoamed/foam precursor granules (i.e. unexpanded granules) have a density of 400-1500 kg/m3 (i.e. 24.9 to 93.6 lbs/ft3). (par. [0022]). However, does not measure the “bulk density” of the granules as presently claimed.
The term “density” refers generally to the ratio of mass to volume of the material, excluding empty spaces, voids or pores. “Bulk density” as claimed refers to the ratio of mass of the particles to the volume of a container that has been freely filled with the particles that are loosely packed and includes the entire volume of the container (i.e. including the material and empty spaces, voids or pores between and within the particles). (see Building Materials in Civil Engineering, Chapter 2: The Basic Properties of Building Materials, 2.2.1, 1 and 3. Density and Bulk Density, p. 12, 2011, included with this office action). Given that air, which would be present between the granules of Lewcyk et al., has a density of approximately 0.075 lbs/ft3, the bulk density of the granules of Lewcyk et al. would be at most the same as the density value described in the reference or substantially less due to the inclusion of the lower density air being measured in the volume. Therefore, the bulk density of the granules of Lewcyk et al. would be at most 24.9 to 93.6 lbs/ft3 which overlaps with the claimed range of “37 lbs/ft3 or less” as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Lewcyk et al. discloses that the starch used includes starch having an amylose content of 25-80% (par. [0032]) which would therefore meet the limitation of a “high-amylose starch”.
Regarding claim 5, the foam precursor includes polybutylene adipated-co-therephthalate (PBAT) as plasticizer. (Abstract and (par. [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Lewcyk et al. discloses the use of starch, plasticizer, water and one or more other agents (Abstract and par. [0022] and [0026]) which would meet the narrower “consisting essentially of” transition phrase.
Regarding claim 12, Lewcyk et al. does not include fibers and cellulose may be replaced with starch. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Lewcyk et al. teaches the inclusion of pigments and dyes (i.e. coloring agents). (par. [0023], [0028] and [0067]).
Regarding claims 33-34, the bulk density of the granules of Lewcyk et al. would be at most 24.9 to 93.6 lbs/ft3 which overlaps with the claimed range of “35 lbs/ft3 or less” and “35 lbs/ft3 or less” as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 35, Lewcyk et al. teaches the inclusion of polyvinyl alcohol (i.e. a vinyl copolymer blowing agent). (par. [0041]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewcyk et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2025/0129225) in view Catchmark et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0298319) (cited in the IDS filed on 05/08/2025) and Dehennau et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,160).
Lewcyk et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 14, Lewcyk et al. teaches that the foam precursor composition may include: a dye (coloring agent) (par. [0067]), calcium carbonate and talc (nucleation agent) (par. [0041]) and polyvinyl alcohol (i.e. a vinyl copolymer blowing agent). (par. [0041]).
Lewcyk et al. does not teach inclusion of rheology agents or surfactants selected from the materials in claim 14.
Catchmark et al. discloses a method of making insoluble polysaccharide (i.e. starch) based foams by including an anionic and cationic polysaccharide, solvent and plasticizer in the starch composition. (Abstract). Catchmark et al. discloses it is known in the art to include compounds such as carboxymethyl cellulose and xanthan gum in starch composite to improve the shape, texture and structure of the composite. (par. [0004]). Catchmark et al. uses these materials as well as guar gum and carrageenan for the same purpose (par. [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carboxmethyl cellulose and xanthan gum (equivalent to the claimed rheology agent and surfactant presently claimed) in the starch pellet composition of Lewcyk et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these components in view of the known improved properties imparted to starches including these modifiers such as shape, texture and structure of the starch composite, which would be relevant to the applications of Lewcyk et al. for adjusting the desire shape of the puffed polysaccharide particulates.
Lewcyk et al. in view of Catchmark et al. does not disclose the presence of yeast in the starch foam precursor composition.
Dehennau et al. discloses thermoformable compositions containing a starchy compound, a biodegradable polyester and a salt of hydroxycarboxylic acid. (Abstract). Dehennau et al. further discloses that it is known in the art to include 0.01 to 10% weight of a culture medium such as yeast extract in with hydrolysable/biodegradable polymers such as lactic, maleic and glycolic acid to improve the biodegradability thereof. (col. 4, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include yeast in the amount disclosed in Dehennau et al. in the starch pellet composition of Lewcyk et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a yeast extract component in the starch pellets composition disclosed in Lewcyk et al. for the purpose of improving the biodegradability or the rate of degradation thereof for reducing the environmental impact of the starch pellets.
Regarding claim 15, Lewcyk et al. teaches that the additives aside from starch, PBAT and water can be included in the composition in amounts of 15% or less, 5% or less, 2.5% or less and 1% or less. (par. [0024]). Therefore, the inclusion of the nucleation agent, blowing agent, rheology agent, salt, cellulose, surfactant and leavening agents would overlap with the presently claimed ranges. With respect to the claimed content of salt and cellulose, these are considered optional limitations since they do not define a lower end of the range and therefore include 0 weight percent.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative amounts of these components relative to the starch pellet, balancing for the other components, based on the result effective variable teachings in Lewcyk et al., Catchmark and Dehennau of the components and their interaction with the starch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to balance the contents thereof with the overall optimal mechanical properties of the starch pellets. "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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 22 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewcyk et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2025/0129225) in view of Vincent et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,800,596)
Lewcyk et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Lewcyk et al. fails to disclose an insulation panel including two or more portions saturated with a first substance and an insulation core layer comprising the plurality of granules (i.e. pellets) positioned along the two or more portions such that there is space between each respective pellet of the plurality of pellets. However, Lewcyk et al. teaches making insulating packaging materials with the starch-based materials disclosed in the reference. (see par. [0057]). Furthermore, Lewcyk et al. contemplates making articles and molded objects by foaming the granules after forming a desired shape. (par. [0055]).
Vincent et al. discloses an insulation panel containing in the core a plurality of discrete puffed polysaccharide particulates defining a plurality of voids within the core. (Abstract and Fig. 1A). The panel includes a top and bottom barrier layer including (elements 20 and 30, Fig. 1A) which are made of porous paper and may include a laminant or coating to improve water resistance which helps protect the insulating core layer. (i.e. saturated with paper or with the laminant or coating, col. 3, lines 1-8col. 9, lines 10-20). The core of the panel is arranged such that the puffed polysaccharide particulates are positioned between two or more portions of the panel (against the top and bottom barrier, respectively, Fig. 1A-1D) and the voids are the result of the space between the pellets (Fig. 1D). The relative void amount in the panel can be adjusted in order to be filled or left empty to alter the properties of the panel. (col. 13, lines 30-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an insulation panel including the granules disclosed in of Lewcyk et al. as taught by Vincent et al. including two or more portions surrounding a core structure including the granules of Lewcyk et al. and forming spaces between the granules.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an insulation panel using the granules of Lewcyk et al. to form a packaging material having insulating properties with the advantageous effects of being compostable. Based on the teachings of Vincent et al. regarding how to make a packaging material using polysaccharide-based particles, it would have been obvious to provide a panel including a top and bottom barrier layer that has improved water resistance to protect the insulating core made of the granules of Lewcyk et al. It would further have been obvious for the insulating core to include spaces between the granules of Lewcyk et al. in order to adjust the material properties by optionally filling the spaces between with filling materials as taught in Vincent et al., to improve the material properties of the insulating core material.
Regarding claim 31, Vincent et al. in Fig. 1C teaches the following packaging material:
PNG
media_image1.png
899
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an insulating panel having the configuration disclosed in Vincent et al., using the granules taught by Lewcyk et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a panel having the configuration disclosed in Vincent et al. in order to provide insulation and protection surrounding at least three sides of a material to be packaged in the insulating material (see Fig. 1C, where the packaged material would sit in the “U” shaped sections), thereby providing enhanced insulation and protection.
Regarding claim 32, Lewcyk et al. et al. discloses that the composition includes 50-90% starch and 10-40% PBAT (plasticizer) (par. [0024] and [[0026]), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewcyk et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2025/0129225) in view of Catchmark et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0298319) (cited in the IDS filed on 05/08/2025).
Lewcyk et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 36-37, Lewcyk et al. does not teach inclusion of rheology agents or surfactants selected from the materials in claims 36-37.
Catchmark et al. discloses a method of making insoluble polysaccharide (i.e. starch) based foams by including an anionic and cationic polysaccharide, solvent and plasticizer in the starch composition. (Abstract). Catchmark et al. discloses it is known in the art to include compounds such as carboxymethyl cellulose and xanthan gum in starch composite to improve the shape, texture and structure of the composite. (par. [0004]). Catchmark et al. uses these materials as well as guar gum and carrageenan for the same purpose (par. [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carboxmethyl cellulose and xanthan gum (equivalent to the claimed rheology agent and surfactant presently claimed) in the starch pellet composition of Lewcyk et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these components in view of the known improved properties imparted to starches including these modifiers such as shape, texture and structure of the starch composite, which would be relevant to the applications of Lewcyk et al. for adjusting the desire shape of the puffed polysaccharide particulates.
Regarding claim 38, Lewcyk et al. teaches that the foam precursor composition may include: a dye (coloring agent) (par. [0067]) and calcium carbonate and talc (nucleation agent) (par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 39, Lewcyk et al. discloses a foam precursor which is made from an unmodified starch, polybutylene adipated-co-therephthalate (PBAT) and water. (Abstract) Lewcyk et al. discloses that the foam precursor may be provided in the form of unfoamed granules (i.e. “a plurality of pellets” as presently claimed) (par. [0022] and [0034]). The composition of the foam precursor includes 50-90% starch, 10-40% PBAT and 1-20% water. (par. [0024] and [0026]). Additional materials (equivalent to “one or more agents” as presently claimed) may be included in the composition in amounts of less than 15%. (par. [0024] and [0026]). Furthermore, Lewcyk et al. teaches that the foam precursor composition may include and polyvinyl alcohol (i.e. a vinyl copolymer blowing agent). (par. [0041]). Finally, Lewcyk et al. that the granules are non-expanded (foam precursors). (par. [0022]).
Lewcyk et al. does not teach inclusion of rheology agents or surfactants selected from the materials in claim 39.
Catchmark et al. discloses a method of making insoluble polysaccharide (i.e. starch) based foams by including an anionic and cationic polysaccharide, solvent and plasticizer in the starch composition. (Abstract). Catchmark et al. discloses it is known in the art to include compounds such as carboxymethyl cellulose and xanthan gum in starch composite to improve the shape, texture and structure of the composite. (par. [0004]). Catchmark et al. uses these materials as well as guar gum and carrageenan for the same purpose (par. [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carboxmethyl cellulose and xanthan gum (equivalent to the claimed rheology agent and surfactant presently claimed) in the starch pellet composition of Lewcyk et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these components in view of the known improved properties imparted to starches including these modifiers such as shape, texture and structure of the starch composite, which would be relevant to the applications of Lewcyk et al. for adjusting the desire shape of the puffed polysaccharide particulates.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 03/12/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Vincent in view of Niles et al., made of record in the office action mailed on 01/13/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
The new limitation “wherein at least some of the plurality of pellets are not expanded” is broad enough to include a mixture of “pellets” of different compositions such as the ones described in Vincent et al. wherein the filler materials present in the voids between the polysaccharide pellets (i.e. the first pellet), as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, while the polysaccharide pellets of Vincent et al. are expanded, as argued by Applicant in the response filed on 03/12/2026, the current claim limitations do not preclude the existence of pellets that are not “the first pellet” and wherein it is the other pellets that are not expanded. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5, 11-15, 22-24 and 31-38 remain unpatentable over modified Vincent et al. as set forth in the claim rejections above.
Furthermore, the claims are further rejected over the new grounds of rejection based on Lewcyk et al. included with this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights