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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/9/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended; claims 2-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 17-18 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 19-21 are currently pending in the application.
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Beek et al (WO 2018/114984 A1) in view of Webster (US 2002/0156165).
Regarding claim 1, Van Beek et al disclose an exterior or semi-exterior automotive part (i.e., reads on the automotive component in present claim 1) prepared from a thermoplastic composition comprising polypropylene (i.e., reads on the thermoplastic olefin substrate in present claim 1), ethylene-α-olefin elastomer (i.e., reads on the elastomer in present claim 1) and phenolic antioxidant (abstract) which reads on the phenolic antioxidant in present claim 1. See example E4 (Table 3) wherein the composition comprises polypropylene (i.e., reads on the thermoplastic olefin in present claim 1), elastomer (i.e., reads on the elastomer in present claim 1), 0.1% by weight of phenolic antioxidant mixture including 50% by weight of tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphite (i.e., reads on organophosphorus stabilizer in present claim 1) and 50% by weight of pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenol)propionate (i.e., reads on phenolic antioxidant in present claim 1), 0.4% by weight light stabilizer (i.e., reads on hindered amine light stabilizer in present claim 1, see Table 3 and page 26, line 7) and 0.1% by weight of heat stabilizer which is distearyl thiodipropionate (Table 3 and page 26, lines 3-6) which reads on amount of thioester additive in present claim 1. Examples of additional antioxidants include thiosynergists such as dilauryl thiodipropionate, and distearyl thiodipropionate (page 19, lines 27-30). The composition can include additional additives such as acid scavengers (i.e., reads on acid scavenger in present claim 1, anti-scratch additives (i.e., reads on anti-scratch additive in present claim 1) and dyes (page 19, lines 4-7) which reads on colorant in present claim 1.
Van Beek et al fail to disclose as in present claims species of thioester additive; and amount of HALS.
However, regarding species of thioester additive, Webster in the same field of endeavor teach polyolefin articles with long term heat aging stability. The heat stabilizing composition comprises hindered phenolic antioxidant, sulfur containing secondary stabilizer and hindered amine (abstract). Examples of sulfur containing secondary antioxidants include pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-alkylthiopropionate) wherein alkyl is C6-C20- carbon atoms such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-dodecylthiopropionate) (paragraphs 0123 and 0128) and dilauryl 3,3-thiodipropionate (paragraph 0132). It is noted that pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-dodecylthiopropionate) is represented by formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e., reads on thioester additive in present claim 1). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Webster, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include thioester, of Webster, such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-dodecylthiopropionate), in the exemplary embodiment, of Van Beek et al, because of the equivalence of distearyl thiodipropionate, dilauryl thiodipropionate and pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-dodecylthio propionate) to function as thioester additives in polyolefin compositions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding HALS and its amount, Van Beek et al teach that additional additives such as light stabilizers may be included in amounts of 0 to 3 wt% (page 19, lines 4-5) which overlaps with the amount of HALS in present claim 1. Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, in light of the teachings in general disclosure of Van Beek et al and case law, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to have selected the overlapping range, of 0.09 wt% to about 0.14 wt%, from general disclosure of Van Beek et al, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, see example E4, wherein the phenolic antioxidant mixture includes pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate (Table 4, and page 26, lines 3-4).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see example E4, wherein the phenolic antioxidant mixture includes tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphite which is represented by formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
131
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Table 3 and pages 3-5) which reads on organophosphorus stabilizer comprises at least one of triphenyl phosphite in present claim 9 and the organophosphorus stabilizer in present claim 10).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, examples of hindered amine stabilizers, in Webster, include bis(2,2,6,6-tetrmethylpiperidin-4-yl)sebacate (paragraph 0155) which reads on hindered amine light stabilizer in present claim 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 16, see example E4, wherein the composition comprises 0.1% by weight of phenolic antioxidant mixture including 50% by weight of pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenol)propionate, and 0.1% by weight of heat stabilizer which is distearyl thiodipropionate (Table 3 and page 26, lines 3-6).
Regarding claims 19-21, given that plastic article comprising a thermoplastic olefin substrate, and a composition for forming the thermoplastic olefin substrate comprises thermoplastic olefin, elastomer, colorant, anti-scratch additive, an acid scavenger, and a stabilizer additive composition containing a thioester additive, a phenolic oxidant, organophosphorus stabilizer and HALS, is obvious based on the disclosure in Van Beek et al combined with the teachings in Webster, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the plastic article, of Van Beek et al in view of Webster, to exhibit the presently claimed properties (i.e., yellowness index delta, at 168 hours, in gas fade testing performed according to AATCC 23 ranging from about 1.2 to about 1.9; exhibits a long term stability at 150 °C evidenced by hours to failure ranging greater than about 500 hours, tested in accordance with ASTM D3012; 60 0 gloss retention, after 2000 hours, ranging from about 40% to about 70%, tested in accordance with SAE J24120), absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in paragraph 8, of office action mailed 11/19/2025, are withdrawn in view amendments and/or applicant arguments and/or new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights