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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim status identifier is “currently amended”, however there is no corresponding shown deletions or insertions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “the amount of PTAP in a composition with 0.6 mole% of the nitrogen-containing compound…”, the specification does not support all compositions with 0.6 mole% of the nitrogen-containing compound has the claimed features.
Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “by weight of the hydrolytically stabilized phosphite composition based on the total weight of the phosphite antioxidant and the nitrogen containing compound”. The content is based on the weight of the hydrolytically stabilized phosphite composition AND the total weight of the phosphite antioxidant and the nitrogen containing compound, which could be the same or different due to the phrase “comprising” in the preamble. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as based on the weight of the hydrolytically stabilized phosphite composition.
Claim 1, 9 recite “the nitrogen atom has a pKaH value”. However, the pKaH value is a property associated with a compound or a group in a specific compound, an atom does not have pKaH value. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-3 are confusing. What is the base for the “equivalent amount”?
Claim 4 recites “the amount of PTAP in a composition with 0.6 mole% of the nitrogen-containing compound…”, it is unclear how the “a composition with…” relates to the claim invention,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rummens (US 2015/0027516).
Rummens teaches a composition comprising 0.1 wt% of Tinuvin 770 and 0.2 wt% of Weston 705 [0529]. Weston 705 is a blend of phosphites which reads on the claimed phosphite antioxidant. Tinuvin 770 is bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl) sebacate
PNG
media_image1.png
314
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed nitrogen-containing compound. The claimed hydrolytically stability is inherent to Weston 705. The claimed properties are inherent to the composition.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al (US 2018/0244898).
Nakagawa teaches a liquid composition comprising 0.16 wt% of Dabco 33LV and 0.3 wt% of Weston 705 [0072]. Weston 705 is a blend of phosphites which reads on the claimed phosphite antioxidant. Dabco 33LV is 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane
PNG
media_image2.png
204
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed nitrogen-containing compound. The claimed hydrolytically stability is inherent to Weston 705. The claimed properties are inherent to the composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rummens (US 2015/0027516) or in view of Hill et al (US 8,048,946).
Rummens teaches the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Rummens does not teach the range of the content of HALS.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the amount of HALS through routine experimentation depending on the product thickness and the level of sun exposure to balance between efficiency and cost, because the content is a result effective variable where insufficient amount may result in suboptimal performance, whereas excessive amounts lead to unnecessary cost. 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).
Alternatively, Hill discloses a similar composition and teaches the HALS as a UV stabilizer can be used in an amount of 0.001-2 wt% (table 3, 12:56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the HALS in an amount overlapping the claimed range because it is recognized in the art being a suitable amount for polymer composition.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘384 claims a composition comprising a phosphite mixture and a hindered amine.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,383. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘383 claims a composition comprising a phosphite mixture and a hindered amine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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