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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species of the mixture of claim 19 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction is only proper if there would be a serious burden placed on the Examiner if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because for PCT national stage applications, restriction is based upon unity of invention; restriction of a national stage application does not take into account whether or not the inventions are independent or distinct, and does not take into account burden on the examiner.
Therefore, the restriction requirement based on the lack of unity analysis is still deemed proper and is made final. Accordingly, claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
Response to Amendment
The new claim 19 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: A-3 and or A-4 should be “A-3 and A-4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malatesta et al (WO 2005/047384) in view of Mueller et al (US 2020/0087486, equivalent with WO 2018/177846).
Claim 1, 3, 5: Malatesta teaches a mixture containing a triazine compound, a hindered amine and hydroxybenzophenone compound. The hydroxybenzophenone compound is Cyasorb UV 531 2-hydroxy-4-n-octoxybenzophenone (11:15-20)
PNG
media_image1.png
148
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. The triazine compound is Cyasorb UV 1164 2- [4, 6-bis (2, 4-dimethylphenyl)-1, 3, 5-triazin-2-yl]-5- (octyloxy) phenol
PNG
media_image2.png
238
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The weight ratio of triazine compound to hydroxybenzophenone compound can be 0.045:0.045 = 1:1 (example 1, table 1). The hindered amine compound may be any suitable hindered amine compound (3:20).
Malatesta does not teach the hindered amine compound as claimed.
However, Mueller discloses a similar composition comprising a hindered amine and a triazine compound, the hindered amine compounds can be
PNG
media_image3.png
284
992
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0014-0015], the stabilizer mixture further contains
PNG
media_image4.png
156
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and 4-octyloxy-2-hydroxy benzophenone [0023, 0095]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the hindered amine compounds of Mueller in the composition of Malatesta because Malatesta teaches the hindered amine compound may be any suitable hindered amine compound and Mueller teaches this hindered amine is suitable to form a stabilizer mixture.
Claim 6: Malatesta does not teach an additional component (d) as claimed.
However, Mueller discloses a similar composition comprising a hindered amine and a triazine compound, the stabilizer mixture further contains
PNG
media_image4.png
156
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and 4-octyloxy-2-hydroxy benzophenone [0023, 0095]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add the additional compounds of Mueller in the composition of Malatesta because it is recognized in the art it is suitable to form a stabilizer mixture.
Claims 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braig et al (US 2006/0052491).
Braig teaches a stabilizer mixture for polyolefins containing a compound (A2), a compound xxxvi and a hindered amine [0561-0562, 0273]. A2 is
PNG
media_image5.png
369
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, xxxvi is 2-hydroxy-4-octyloxybenzophenone, the hindered amine can be Chimassorb 2020 (i.e. claimed A-3 compound) [0274]. The weight ratio of A2 to xxxvi is 1:2.
Braig does not expressly name a single embodiment having the claimed composition. However, each of the components of the composition is described in the reference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to have made any of the compositions suggested by the reference, including the claimed composition, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braig et al (US 2006/0052491) in view of Menozzi et al (US 2012/0232197).
Braig teaches limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Braig does not teach a hindered amine of A-2 like claimed.
However, Menozzi teaches HALS
PNG
media_image6.png
692
1181
media_image6.png
Greyscale
provides a better long term stability than Chimassorb 2020 (examples). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a HALS like claimed to replace Chimassorb 2020 to achieve a better long term stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and declaration filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding reference Malatesta, it is noted that the mixture of UV 1164 and UV 531 is a preferred embodiment.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the unexpected results, 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) the data is not unexpected because different antioxidants prevents the degradation from different sources such as free radical, UV light, photo-oxidation etc. Including one additional antioxidant in the mixture broadens the protection spectrum and therefore a better retained physical property is expected. All data show a mixture of B and C performs better than B alone or C alone. There is no experimental data showing B performs better than C. Additionally, applicants should explain for UV absorbers if UV light shielding is the only factor affecting the overall performance. 3) the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only contains A-2 and one species of each of A-3 and A-4 as compared to the claimed genus of A-3 and A-4 and species of A-0, A-1 and A-2; the inventive data only contains B-1, B-2 and B-3 as compared to the claimed formula B-I and B-II; the inventive data only contains certain amount of each component as compared to the claimed broad recitation. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In response to applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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
Prosecution Insights