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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the teachings of Fukuda, applicants argued that the examples do not disclose either hydroxy group containing fatty acid or hydrotalcite:
Response: the disclosure of Fukuda is not limited to examples only, and the provisions for anticipation rejection do not require all embodiments to be exemplified. The anticipation rejection requires all components of the claimed composition to be explicitly taught in one single reference.
Fukuda teaches hydrotalcite having following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fatty acid of formula 2
PNG
media_image2.png
86
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The fatty acid can have hydroxy substitution and metal salt M is lithium [0033, 0035, 0036].
Applicants arguments with respect to Charpy impact are not commensurate with the scope of the claims or rejection as this property is not recited and examples are not reflective of the entirety of teachings of Fukuda.
With respect to Ichiyanagi the applicants argue that the reference does not teach examples with hydroxy containing fatty acid lithium salt.
Response: as stated above, the reference of Ichiyanagi is not limited to examples only, and the provisions for anticipation rejection do not require all embodiments to be exemplified. The anticipation rejection requires all components of the claimed composition to be explicitly taught in one single reference.
Applicants arguments with respect to Charpy impact are non-commensurate with the scope of the claims or the scope of rejection. Charpy impact is not claimed.
In view of the above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, all rejections of record are restated.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Fukuda (JP 6513278 full translation provided).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to claim 7, Fukuda discloses composition for stabilizing polymers. The composition comprises following components:
Component A has following chemical structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
146
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Component A is an organic oxoacid metal salt based on phosphate and is utilized in amount of 35-75wt% based on the content of components A-D [0020].
Component B is sodium carboxylate, encompassed by term comprising [0032], utilized in amount of 10-40 wt.% [0020]. When blended with thermoplastic polymer content of A is 0.001-10 wt.% [0030]
Component C is a metal salt of fatty acid metal salt [0035] is an aliphatic acid comprising 10-30 carbon atoms wherein preferred cation is lithium, potassium or zinc [0035]. The hydrocarbon of the fatty acid comprises hydroxyl group [0036]. 12-hydroxysteading acid is specifically named [0037]. Component C is utilized in 0-20 wt. % [0020], as such the content of the fatty acid meets the claimed range based on the amount of nucleating agent.
Component D is fatty acid as well, also encompassed by the term “comprising”.
Last but not lease Fukuda teaches use of hydrotalcites having following formulae:
PNG
media_image4.png
48
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
52
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hydrotalcites are utilized in amount of 0.001-5 wt.% based on the amount of thermoplastic resin. With nucleating resin being up to 10 wt.%, the content of hydrotalcite also meets instantly claimed range.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, examples depict polypropylene homopolymer, which means that 100% of the repeat units are propylene units [0082]
With respect to claim 11, the pellets obtained are molded into an article [0083]
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ichiyanagi (US 5,717,013).
With respect to claim 7, Ichiyanagi discloses polypropylene composition comprising following components (per 100 parts of polypropylene) 0.01-5 pbw of alkali salt of carboxylate (Abstract), 0.01-0.5 pbw of phosphate compound of formula 1, and 0.01-0.5 of lithium aluminum compound.
Alkali salt of carboxylate is defined as alkali salt of carboxylic acid, which includes 12-hydroxy stearic acid, wherein alkali salt is lithium, especially when lithium salts of aliphatic monocarboxylic acids are preferred, in particular those having 8-12 carbon atoms.
Phosphate compound has following structure (col. 6):
PNG
media_image6.png
254
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lithium aluminum compound is a hydrotalcite having following formula (col. 7, line 43-44)
PNG
media_image7.png
40
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to the amounts, normalizing the amount of the additives per 100 parts of phosphate compound, both fatty acid salt and hydrotalcite meet the claimed range. With phosphate being 0.01-0.5 and fatty acid salt being 0.01-5, and hydrotalcite being 0.01-0.5, the lower range alone meets 1:1:1 ratio or 100% to 100% to 100%.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, propylene polymer used in the example is isotactic polypropylene, with no comonomer therefore all repeat units are propylene units.
With respect to claim 11, the composition comprises melt blending all the components extruding into pellets or granulates (see examples, and col. 7). Obtained pellets were injection molded into specimen, wherein a test specimen is an article.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (JP 6513278).
The discussion of Fukuda from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. Fukuda as disclosed above teaches all the components of claim 7 which includes all the additives in the polypropylene composition. The difference between the prior art and the instant invention is that the prior art seems to add all the components together while instant invention makes an additive pre-mix, before it is incorporated into polyolefin.
MPEP 2144.04(IV)C is directed to chances in sequence of adding ingredients. In re Burgans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) dictates that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new and unexpected results; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPW 230 (CCPA 1930) states that selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
With respect to claim 1, In examples Fukuda teaches premixing components A-D but does not teach adding hydrotalcite along with the additives. Hydrotalcite of Fukuda are fillers which would not chemically, affect the composition of the premix, as such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a pre-mix that include hydrotalcite and thereby obtain claimed invention.
With respect to claims 2-4, Fukuda teaches following oxoacid compounds:
PNG
media_image8.png
404
760
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Dicarboxylates include:
PNG
media_image9.png
214
524
media_image9.png
Greyscale
These are the same compounds listed in the instant specification as originally filed.
With respect to instant claim 5, lithium salt of 12-hydroxystearic acid is explicitly named [0036-0037].
With respect to claim 6, hydrotalcites of Fukuda have following structures:
PNG
media_image4.png
48
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image5.png
52
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11 was addressed in paragraph 1.
With respect to claim 10, Fukuda adds pre-mix to the polymer to make the molded product.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to utilize hydrotalcite of Fukuda as part of the pre-mix and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Such modification would still provide polymeric moldings that have excellent transparency and physical properties.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiyanagi (US 5,717,013).
The discussion of Ichiyanagi from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
In the examples Ichiyanagi, propylene homopolymer was mixed with equal amounts of each component. The components were blended together in a Henschel mixer before they are melt-kneaded.
The difference between instant invention and the teachings of Ichiyanagi is premixing additives and then add them to the polyolefin.
MPEP 2144.04(IV)C is directed to chances in sequence of adding ingredients. In re Burgans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) dictates that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new and unexpected results; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPW 230 (CCPA 1930) states that selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
With respect to claim 1, all component were blended dry without raising any temperature and therefore no chemical reactions have occurred. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to first pre-mix the additives and then add them to the polymeric component. Such modification would not adversely affect the distribution of the additive within the polymeric matrix since the mixing stage of Ichiyanaga is non-productive stage.
With respect to claims 2-5, utilizing specification as a dictionary Ichiyanaga teaches following compound:
PNG
media_image10.png
270
326
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Ichiyanagi discloses hydrotalcite having following formula (col. 7)
PNG
media_image11.png
28
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Rejection of claims 7-9 and 11 from paragraph 2 is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claim 10, Ichiyanagi discloses adding the additives to the polymer (see the discussion in claim 1). The blend is mixed, extruded into pellets and injection molded into an article.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 October 27, 2025