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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed January 20, 2026.
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are cancelled due to Applicant’s previous amendments.
Claims 4-6 and 18 are cancelled due to Applicant’s amendments filed January 20, 2026.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 11 are pending.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A peroxide stable polymer composition comprising: a mixture of
(i) from 98 wt% to 99 wt% of polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate (PVP/VA) copolymer; and
(ii) from 1.0 wt% to 2.0 wt% of butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA),
wherein the polymer composition has peroxide content varying in the range of from 0 to 180 ppm, based on solid content of the PVP/VA copolymer; wherein the PVP/VA copolymer is a linear random copolymer having PVP monomers in an amount of from 50 wt.% to 80 wt.%, and VA monomers in an amount of from 20 wt.% to 50 wt.%; and wherein the weight ratio of the PVP and VA monomer is 60:40: and the PVP/VA copolymer has a weight average molecular weight ranging from 20,000 to 40,000.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomihisa et al. (US 20020058782) in view of Chevet et al. (US 20170128347).
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 11, Tomihisa et al. teach at least one antioxidant can be present in an amount from 0.00001-30 wt% of the vinylpyrrolidone polymer (claim 1), equivalent to 0.99 to 23 wt% of antioxidant and 77 to 99.01 wt% vinylpyrrolidone polymer in the total composition and thereby overlapping with the claimed ranges. Tomihisa et al. disclose in Example 8 comprises 10 g of a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate and 0.01 g of a hydroquinone, an antioxidant, equivalent to 99.9 wt% of PVP/VA copolymer and 0.01 wt% of antioxidant and lying outside the claimed range. Tomihisa et al. disclose the PVP/VA polymer of Example 8 has a molar ratio of 80/20, thereby lying within the claimed range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the broader range of 0.99 to 23 wt% of antioxidant and 77 to 99.01 wt% of vinylpyrrolidone polymer as taught by Tomihisa et al.
In the case where the claimed ranges “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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Tomihisa et al.
Tomihisa et al. and the instant claims differ in that Tomihisa et al. does not teach butylated hydroxy anisole in the composition of Example 8 and in claim 1. However, Tomihisa et al. does teach butylated hydroxyanisole as an antioxidant [0027-0035]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the antioxidant used in Example 8 with butylated hydroxyanisole given that Tomihisa et al. teach both hydroquinone and butylated hydroxyanisole are usable as antioxidants.
Tomihisa et al. does not teach the weight ratio as recited in the instant claim.
However, Tomihisa et al. does teach the ratio of vinylpyrrolidone is most preferably not lower than 20.0 mol% [0021-0022]. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Tomihisa et al.
Tomihisa et al. is silent on whether the composition is peroxide stable.
It is noted that Tomihisa et al. does not disclose peroxide is present in the composition (Examples 8), thereby reading on 0 ppm of hydrogen peroxide.
Furthermore, the composition disclosed by Tomihisa et al. is substantially identical to the instant one, the peroxide content would be the same as claimed one and the peroxide stability would be expected. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Tomihisa et al. do not teach the weight average molecular weight of the PVP/VA copolymer as recited in the instant claims 1 and 7.
Chevet et al. teach a disclose a composition comprises a copolymer of vinylpyrrolidone and vinyl acetate wherein the weight average molecular weight is between 15,000 to 600,000 [0041]. Chevet et al. offer the motivation that the copolymer improves the properties of perfuming compositions [0037-0042]. Tomihisa et al. is also interested in providing the vinylpyrrolidone polymer in fields such as cosmetics [0066]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the copolymer of Chevet et al. with the copolymer of Tomihisa et al. with reasonable expectation that the olfactory properties would improve.
Regarding claim 8, Tomihisa et al. teach the K value of the PVP/VA polymer of Example 8 is 50, thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Tomihisa et al. do not teach the K value of Example 8 overlaps with the claimed range. However, Tomihisa et al. teach the K value of the vinylpyrrolidone polymer is preferably 15 to 150, thereby overlapping with 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. (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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Tomihisa et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Tomihisa et al. (US 20020058782) in view of Chevet et al. (US 20170128347).
The Applicant states “the combination of Tomihisa and Chevet does not fairly teach or suggest amended claim 1”.
The examiner disagrees and directs attention to the new grounds of rejection for claim 1, wherein Tomihisa et al. in view of Chevet et al. do teach the peroxide stable polymer composition. Chevet et al. offer the motivation that the copolymer improves the properties of perfuming compositions [0037-0042]. Tomihisa et al. is also interested in providing the vinylpyrrolidone polymer in fields such as cosmetics [0066]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the copolymer of Chevet et al. with the copolymer of Tomihisa et al. with reasonable expectation that the olfactory properties would improve.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763