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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the amino group”. The examiner suggests deleting this limitation to match the deletion in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, there does not appear to be support for a second thermoplastic resin in the masterbatch formulation.
Regarding claim 13, this appears to be a repeat of claim 10 and can be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaukroger (US 2019/0040210) in view of Peters et al (Amino Derivatives of 1,8-Naphthalic Anhydride and Derived Dyes for Synthetic-Polymer Fibers, Dyes and Pigments, 6, (1985), 349-375) (cited in IDS dated 12/9/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8-9, Gaukroger teaches a masterbatch (Abstract) comprising a first thermoplastic resin such as a polyolefin ([0032]) as a first thermoplastic and acrylic additive ([0033]) as a second thermoplastic. The masterbatch also contains a dye ([0034]), which is present in the amount which overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 30% by mass (Examples). This masterbatch is a colored resin composition (Claims, Example).
While Gaukroger teaches that the dye can be any standard dye used in the coloring of thermoplastics ([0029]), it fails to teach any of the recited dye compounds.
Peters teaches the following dyes which are used to dye polymer fibers (Title)
PNG
media_image1.png
324
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 351)
These read on Formula (1a) when p=0 and R1= hydrogen and R2 is a nitrogen containing group. The structure listed in the figure of Peters is as follows: VII is a pyrrolidinyl group, VIII is a piperidinyl group, IX is a morpholino group, and X is a piperazinyl group.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the masterbatch of Gaukroger incorporate the dyes as taught by Peters. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a known dye that gives a fluorescent deep orange color (Peters, page 358).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaukroger (US 2019/0040210) in view of Peters et al (Amino Derivatives of 1,8-Naphthalic Anhydride and Derived Dyes for Synthetic-Polymer Fibers, Dyes and Pigments, 6, (1985), 349-375) and Christmann (Liebigs Ann. Chem, 716, 147-155 (1968) (machine language translation included).
The discussion regarding Gaukroger and Peters in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gaukroger fails to teach the incorporation of a second compound represented by the chemical formula (1a’).
Christmann (from a dye research laboratory, author affiliation) cites the following dye structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
230
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on structure (1a’) when p=0 and R1 and R2 are nitrogen containing heterocyclic group combined together to form a fused ring.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the known dye of Christmann with the existing dye of modified Gaukroger. One would have been motivated to do so in order to change the color or fluorescence of the dye to what the application necessitates. It would have been nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaukroger (US 2019/0040210) in view of Peters et al (Amino Derivatives of 1,8-Naphthalic Anhydride and Derived Dyes for Synthetic-Polymer Fibers, Dyes and Pigments, 6, (1985), 349-375) and Ling et al (Building pH sensors into paper-based small-molecular logic systems for very simple detection of edges of objects J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 11, 3763-3766).
The discussion regarding Gaukroger and Peters in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, modified Gaukroger teaches the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
324
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Peters, page 351)
Please refer to structure X which has a piperazinyl group. However, this group is not functionalized.
Ling teaches the following structure which is a known fluorescent molecule:
PNG
media_image3.png
354
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 3753)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure of modified Gaukroger be substituted by a straight alkyl group with 1 carbon as taught by Ling. One would have been motivated to do so because it is a known compound which has fluorescence (Ling, 3763). It would have been nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowden (US 4,179,179) in view of Peters et al (Amino Derivatives of 1,8-Naphthalic Anhydride and Derived Dyes for Synthetic-Polymer Fibers, Dyes and Pigments, 6, (1985), 349-375).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10-11 and 13, Louden teaches a molded article ([0269]) which is a connector housing ([0271]) for automotive wire harness ([0056]). It teaches that the molded article is made from a thermoplastic resin such as a poly (arylene ether) composition ([0029]). It is a colored resin composition and it can be formed by a color masterbatch with a dye ([0278]). The color masterbatch is added in the amount of 3 weight percent or less ([0278]) and Louden teaches that the final colorant concentration is from 0.25 to 2 weight percent ([0255]). Given these amounts, the color masterbatch has a dye loading which can be calculated to overlap the claimed range of 5 to 30% by mass.
However, Louden fails to teach the type of dye incorporated into the masterbatch.
Peters teaches the following dyes which are used to dye polymer fibers (Title)
PNG
media_image1.png
324
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 351)
These read on Formula (1a) when p=0 and R1= hydrogen and R2 is a nitrogen containing group. The structure listed in figure of Peters is as follows: VII is a pyrrolidinyl group, VIII is a piperidinyl group, IX is a morpholino group, and X is a piperazinyl group.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the masterbatch of Louden incorporate the dyes as taught by Peters. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a known dye that gives a fluorescent deep orange color (Peters, page 358).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
The arguments set forth against Kaul, Koeneman, Smink and Yoshida are considered moot as those references are no longer used in the above rejections.
Applicant’s argument: Ling fails to disclose usage of a masterbatch as well as mixing the thermoplastic resin.
Examiner’s response: Ling is now used as a secondary reference only for the teaching of the compound structure. The masterbatch and thermoplastic resin are taught by the Gaukroger and Peters references.
Applicant’s argument: Applicants turn to Table 3 to show that all the compounds of Synthetic Example contained in the colorants of the claimed master batch exhibited a higher weight loss temperature compared to solvent orange 60. This means that the compound has high heat resistance and do not cause discoloration.
Examiner’s response: The data presented represents only four compounds out of the incredible number of possible compounds that are within the large scope of the claimed invention. Also, the specimens do not seem to be made from a masterbatch as presently claimed. And only one type of thermoplastic polymer is used in the examples. Given that the data is not commensurate in scope with that of the claimed invention, applicants’ argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764