DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 15, 2026.
Claims 1-32 are pending.
Claims 1 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 1-19, 22, 26-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallini et al in view of Torchia et al.
Claims 19-21, 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallini et al in view of Torchia et al in view of Minder et al.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 121 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 13/495,109, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites: “wherein amounts of the chroman-based compound and the zinc stearate are selected to enhance processing stability of the polyolefin composition when subjected to extrusion, even in the absence of antistatic agents and organic phosphites and phosphonites, as measured by at least one of the follower properties: improved retention of melt index (MI) after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM D1238-10; improved retention of percent elongation at break after single-pass extrusion; or lower Yellowness Index after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM E313”. Claim 30 recites “wherein the final concentrations of the chroman-based compound and the zinc stearate in the stabilized polyolefin composition enhance processing stability of the stabilized composition when subjected to extrusion, even in the absence of antistatic agents and organic phosphites and phosphonites, as measured by at least one of the follower properties: improved retention of melt index (MI) after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM D1238-10; improved retention of percent elongation at break after single-pass extrusion; or lower Yellowness Index after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM E313”. There is no support found for these limitations in Application No. 13/495,109. Claims 2-29, 31-32 are subsumed under the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19, 22, 26-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pallini et al (US Patent 6,056,897 (already of record)) in view of Torchia et al (US Patent Application 2016/0032078).
Regarding claims 1-19, 22, 26-32, Pallini et al teaches a stabilizer for organic polymers consisting of one or more tocopherols, which can also be mixed with other stabilizers such as secondary antioxidants containing phosphorus or sulfur, sterically hindered phenols and sterically hindered amines (Abstract). Pallini et al further teaches tocopherols including D-ɑ-tocopherol acetate and DL-ɑ-tocopherol acetate (Col. 2, Line 41). Pallini et al further teaches 0.01-0.5wt% of the stabilizer in the organic polymers (Col. 7, Lines 48-50). Pallini et al further teaches 30-85% one or more tocopherols, 0-50wt% of a second antioxidant containing phosphorus or sulfur, 0-50wt% of sterically hindered phenol, 0-50wt% of sterically hindered amine, wherein the secondary antioxidants include tetrakis(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl)-4,4’-diphosphonite and 3,9-bis[2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)phenoxy]-2,4,8,10-tetraoxa-3,9-diphosphaspiro[5.5]undecane and wherein the hindered phenols include tetrakismethylene(3,5-di-t-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate)methane and octadecyl-3-(3’,5’-di-t-butyl-4’-hydroxyphenyl)propionate (Col. 5, Lines 35-67, Col. 6, Lines 1-21). Pallini et al further teaches the hindered amine includes bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)sebacate, bis(1,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)sebacate, bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-piperidyl)succinate (Col. 6, Lines 25-34). Pallini et al further teaches polymers include polypropylene, polyethylene and mixtures thereof (Col. 7, Lines 24-45). However, Pallini et al fails to specifically disclose the chroman based compound is present from 0.001-5/0.01-1wt%, the chroman based compound and 0.01-10wt% of zinc stearate and improved retention melt index, retention of elongation and processing stability and lower yellowness index when subjected to extrusion.
In the same field of endeavor, Torchia et al teaches a stabilizer composition for polymers such as polyolefin polymers which decrease a phosphorus based stabilizer content necessary to stabilizer the polymer (Abstract5); the stabilizer includes zinc stearate (Paragraph 84). Torchia et al further teaches with the stabilization of the polymer resin compositions especially in high temperature processing against changes in melt index and/or color, even though the polymer may undergo a number of extrusions (Paragraph 127). Torchia et al further teaches up to 2 wt% (20,000ppm) of stabilizer which comprises up to 69% zinc stearate (which overlaps/satisfies up to 1.38% of zinc stearate in the polymer composition) (Paragraph 11). Torchia et al further teaches the stabilizer composition may further include UV stabilizer and light stabilizers (Paragraph 99).
With regard to zinc stearate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided zinc stearate in Pallini et al in view of Torchia et al in order to provide an additional stabilizing component to the polymer composition. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
With regard to the chroman based compound being present from 0.001-5/0.01-1wt% and the chroman based compound and the co-additive being present from 0.01-10wt%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the chroman based compound being present from 0.001-5/0.01-1wt% and the chroman based compound and the co-additive being present from 0.01-10wt% in Pallini et al and Torchia et al as Pallini et al teaches overlapping amounts of the components as instantly claimed; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to improved retention melt index, retention of elongation and processing stability and lower yellowness index when subjected to extrusion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected improved retention melt index, retention of elongation and processing stability and lower yellowness index when subjected to extrusion in Pallini et al and Torchia et al as the stabilizing compounds taught in Pallini et al and Torchia et al provide the claimed properties to the polymer composition and Torchia et al specifically teaches the addition of the stabilizers improve the retention melt index, processing stability and lower yellowness index when subject to extrusion (Paragraphs 14-18, 127). Likewise, both Pallini et al and Torchia et al include phosphite and phosphonites in the composition at the lower limit of 0, hence, it is not required in the composition.
Claims 19-21, 23-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pallini et al (US Patent 6,056,897 (already of record)) in view of Torchia et al (US Patent Application 2016/0032078) as applied to claims 1-18, 22, 26-32 above, and in further view of Minder et al (US Patent Application 2009/0085252 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 19-21, 23-25, Pallini et al and Torchia et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Pallini et al and Torchia et al teaches the features above. However, Pallini et al and Torchia et al fail to specifically disclose the claimed hydroxylamines and triazines.
In the same field of endeavor, Minder et al the use of hindered amines as stabilizing agents for thermoplastic polymers (Abstract, Paragraph 17). Minder et al teaches additional stabilizers including hydroxylamines such as N,N-dibenzylhydroxylamine, N,N-diethylhydroxylamine, N,N-dioctylhydroxylamine, N,N-dilaurylhydroxylamine, N,N-ditetradecylhydroxylamine, N,N-dihexadecylhydroxylamine, N,N-dioctadecylhydroxylamine, N-hexadecyl-N-octadecylhydroxylamine, N-heptadecyl-N-octadecylhydroxylamine, N,N-dialkylhydroxylamine derived from hydrogenated tallow amine (Paragraphs 42-43, 48) and triazines such as 2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-4,6-bis(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine and 2-(2-hydroxy-4-octyloxyphenyl)-4,6-bis(4-methylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine (Paragraphs 42-43, 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the claimed hydroxylamines and triazines in Pallini et al and Torchia et al in view of Minder et al in order to provide additional components for stabilizing the polymer. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Pallini et al in view of Torchia et al, Applicant argues that Torchia et al is not prior art as the effective filing date of the present application is June 13, 2012. The Examiner disagrees with the above argument as the claim limitations in claims 1 and 30 are not supported by Application No. 13/495,109; see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above.
Applicant argues that the Application No. 13/495,109 supports “wherein amounts of the chroman-based compound and the zinc stearate are selected to enhance processing stability of the polyolefin composition when subjected to extrusion, even in the absence of antistatic agents and organic phosphites and phosphonites, as measured by at least one of the follower properties: improved retention of melt index (MI) after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM D1238-10; improved retention of percent elongation at break after single-pass extrusion; or lower Yellowness Index after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM E313” and “wherein the final concentrations of the chroman-based compound and the zinc stearate in the stabilized polyolefin composition enhance processing stability of the stabilized composition when subjected to extrusion, even in the absence of antistatic agents and organic phosphites and phosphonites, as measured by at least one of the follower properties: improved retention of melt index (MI) after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM D1238-10; improved retention of percent elongation at break after single-pass extrusion; or lower Yellowness Index after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM E313”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim limitations in the claim lacks literal basis in the specification as originally filed, see Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff'd mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Likewise, the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. It is suggested to amend the claim to: “the chroman-based compound and zinc stearate enhance processing stability of the polyolefin composition when subjected to extrusion, as measured by at least one of the follower properties: improved retention of melt index (MI) after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM D1238-10; improved retention of percent elongation at break after single-pass extrusion; or lower Yellowness Index after multi-pass extrusion, as measured according to ASTM E313”.
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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights