DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claim 1 is supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/19/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-12, 16, 18-20, 28-29, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler (US 6,444,733) in view of Frohaug et al (US 6,719,941).
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-12, 16, 31-33: Stadler teaches a polyolefin hollow article comprising polyolefin, an organophosphorus stabilizer, a hydroxyamine stabilizer, a hindered amine stabilizer, a phenolic antioxidant and a peroxide scavenger, an acid scavenger such as calcium stearate (abstract, 24:40-46, claims, examples). The article further comprises a UV absorbers such as oxamide compounds (22:53). The peroxide scavenger is a thioether such as lauryl ester of thiodipropionic acid (23:39-42). The composition further comprises a filler and the amount of polyolefin overlaps the claimed range (9:18-23, 12:17-23, 17:30-35, 24:18-40). The amount of hindered amine can be 0.1-3 wt% such as 2000 ppm (examples, 17:30-35). The article does not contain zinc oxide. The hindered amine can be H1 (#6 compound of claim 33) (claim 9).
Stadler does not teach the acid scavenger is hydrotalcite.
However, Frohaug discloses a polyolefin composition for rotational molding and teaches acid scavenger can be stearates, hydrotalcite (17:55-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute hydrotalcite for calcium stearate to obtain predictable results because both are acid scavengers for a polyolefin rotomolding composition. It is noted that hydrotalcite also reads on the acid scavenger in claim 31.
Stadler does not teach the amount of oxamide UV absorber, thioether additive.
However, the amount of each additive is a result effective variable which affects different properties of the final article, peroxide scavenger prevents the degradation from free radical, UV absorber prevents the degradation from UV light, and light stabilizer prevents the degradation from photo-oxidation. Insufficient amount may result in suboptimal performance, whereas excessive amounts lead to unnecessary cost, surface blooming, and reduce mechanical strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amounts of hindered amine, UV stabilizer and thio compound through routine experimentation to achieve the optimal prevention effects depending on the final application of the article. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The amount of each additive would result in a ratio of any two additives as claimed.
Claims 18-20: Stadler is silent with respect to the properties of the article. However, the combined teachings from Stadler and Frohaug have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 28-29: the article comprises co-stabilizer such as polyamide in an amount of 0.01-10 wt% (18:55-60, 23:45-50, 24:18-20).
Claims 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler (US 6,444,733) in view of Frohaug et al (US 6,719,941) and further in view of Balducci et al (WO 2017/033142).
Stadler and Frohaug teaches the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Stadler does not teach the thickness of the article.
However, Balducci discloses a rotomolded article and teaches the article has a wall thickness of about 3mm (page 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a rotomolded article with a wall thickness of about 3mm because it is recognized in the art as a suitable wall thickness for rotomolded articles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Stadler does not suggest any specific usefulness for the combination of a HALS, a UV absorber, a thioether and a hydrotalcite, it is not found persuasive because case law holds that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). A reference is relevant for all that it contains, including non-preferred embodiments because a non-preferred portion of a reference is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims. In re Heck, 669 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
In response to applicant's argument that Frohaug does not teach or suggest a specific combination of antiacids with HALS etc., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that Stadler and Frohaug cannot suggest the optimization of the claimed amounts and ratios, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the content of stabilizer being a result effective variable is a known fact generally available to one skilled in the art.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the claimed properties, the data have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that 1) the data is not compared to the closest prior art; 2) formulation 1 has better impact strength or ductility than some of inventive examples, therefore the data is not unexpected; 3) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims, only example 2 shows unexpected properties.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
