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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 16, 18-20, 22, 25-26 are 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 3/11/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 16-19, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minkwitz (WO 2012007268)
Minkwitz teaches a composition comprising 98 parts by weight of AB-i, 0.5 part of C-i Tinuvin 770, 0.25 part of D-i Cyasorb 3853, 0.25 part of E-i Chimassorb 944 and 1 part of F-i carbon black (table 1, example 2). Both Cyasorb 3853 and Chimassorb 944 are hindered amine. Cyasorb 3853 is a sterically hindered mono-piperidine derivatives. Minkwitz further teaches the component E can be benzotriazole [0112, 0096-0108].
AB-i comprise 25 parts of graft copolymer A with a mean particle size of 93nm, 10 parts of graft copolymer B with a mean particle size of 443 nm and 65 parts of styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer. In other words, 63.7 wt% of styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, 9.8 wt% of graft copolymer B and 24.5 wt% of graft copolymers A based on the total weight of the composition. The styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer contains 35wt% of acrylonitrile and 65wt% of styrene [0139-0143].
Given open claim language “comprising” in the present claims and additional ingredients is permitted, this claim rejection uses graft copolymer A from Minkwitz to address all the claim limitations related to the claimed A2 component.
The graft copolymers A contains 79 wt% of rubber core and 21 wt% of a shell. The rubber core has a Tg of below 0°C [0043]. The rubber core contain 97.6 wt% of butyl acrylate and 2.4 wt% of dihydroxydicyclopentadienyl acrylate, the shells contain 75 wt% of styrene and 25 wt% of acrylonitrile (detailed calculation is available upon request).
Because Minkwitz teaches the claimed composition, it is therefore inherent that the composition exhibit claimed property since such a property is evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used, see MPEP 2112.01. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkwitz (WO 2012007268) in view of Dearmitt et al (WO 2008031719).
Minkwitz teaches the limitation of claim 16, as discussed above. Minkwitz further discloses a benzotriazole stabilizer can be used in an amount of 0.01-2 wt% [0112].
Minkwitz does not teach the molar mass of benzotriazole stabilizer.
However, Dearmitt discloses a similar composition and teaches the UV stabilizer can be a benzotriazole compound
PNG
media_image1.png
210
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the benzotriazole compound because it is recognized in the art being suitable for the composition as a UV absorber.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkwitz (WO 2012007268).
Minkwitz teaches the limitation of claim 16, as discussed above. Minkwitz further discloses a hindered phenol can be used in an amount 0.01-2 wt% [0112]. Case law holds that 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).
Moreover, It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minkwitz (WO 2012007268) in view of Niessner et al (WO 2009/004018).
Minkwitz teaches the limitation of claim 16, as discussed above. Minkwitz further discloses additional stabilizers can be used in an amount of 0.01-2 wt% [0112].
Minkwitz does not teach a sulfur containing stabilizer.
However, Niessner discloses a similar composition and teaches a co-stabilizer comprising sulfur can be used (p. 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a sulfur containing stabilizer because it is recognized in the art being suitable for the composition containing styrene polymers. Moreover, It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding 102 rejection, it is noted that secondary consideration does not apply to 102 rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that Dearmitt does not teach a mono-piperidine derivative, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that Niessner does not provide examples containing antioxidants or co-stabilizers nor does Niessner teach weather resistance of the molding compound, it is noted that 1) case law holds that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). 2) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, it is noted that unexpected results should be compared to the closest prior art, be demonstrated by experimental data, be really unexpected and be commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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