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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
There are no amendments to the claims and no new prior art is applied for previously rejected claims. For this reason, it is proper to make the present action FINAL.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings et al. (US 4,278,718) and further in view of Piotrwoski (US 6,350,400). The rejection set forth in paragraphs 3-9 of the Office Action mailed on 1/15/2026 is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
The Response to Arguments set forth in the Office Action mailed on 1/15/2025 is incorporated herein by reference.
Applicant argues that Piotrowski does not mention that the plasticizer is based on citric acid and then alleges that “therefore it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to take the temperature range of Piotrowski and apply it to any critic acid based plasticizer disclosed by Billings,” as stated on page 3, first paragraph of the Remarks filed on 5/6/2026.
This is not persuasive.
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). The citric acid based plasticizers are disclosed in Billings. It is not a requirement that references have identical teachings in order for them to be combinable. If there was such a requirement, combinations of references would be impossible.
As discussed in the previous Office Action incorporated into this action by reference, Billings teaches examples of plasticizers for use in the disclosed compositions which do not contain phthalates, in an amount which overlaps the amount required in the instant claims. Billings only does not disclose a particular temperature at which the components are mixed. However, Piotrwoski teaches products produced from PVC plastisol compositions containing plasticizers. The components of the PVC plastisol, which include PVC powder and the plasticizer, are mixed at a temperature of from 50 to 100ºC, which overlaps the range of instant claim 7. Both Billings and Piotrwoski relate to the field of PVC plastisol compositions and products produced therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the components of Billings at the temperature (5 to 140ºC) disclosed in Piotrwoski in order to provide a simplified process by which to produce products of PVC (col. 1, ln. 25-28). Piotrwoski teaches that premixing of the plasticizer with the PVC powder using the disclose temperature allows for shorter periods of time required for the PVC powder to absorb the plasticizer, providing for a simplified, shorter, and less-complicated process of making articles from PVC plastisols. See col. 1, ln. 40-57. These benefits are particularly attribute to the disclosed temperature.
The rejection is based on the combination of Billings in view of Piotrwoski and not either reference alone. Each of the instantly claimed features is present in the prior art as discussed in the rejection above. There is an express rationale to combine the references, i.e. in order to provide a simplified process by which to produce products of PVC, as Piotrwoski teaches that premixing of the plasticizer with the PVC powder using the disclose temperature allows for shorter periods of time required for the PVC powder to absorb the plasticizer, providing for a simplified, shorter, and less-complicated process of making articles from PVC plastisols. See col. 1, ln. 40-57. It is not a requirement that this benefit from the secondary reference, be disclosed in the primary reference. If there was such a requirement, combinations of references would be essentially impossible.
Applicant asserts that it would not be obvious to combine the references, but provides neither explanation nor evidence that it would not, in fact, be obvious to combine the references for the rationale provided in the rejection. It appears Applicants are arguing that it would not be obvious, because the rationale to combine the references is present in the secondary reference but not the primary reference. It is again noted that it is not a requirement that this benefit from the secondary reference, be disclosed in the primary reference. If there was such a requirement, combinations of references would be essentially impossible. There is an express rationale as to why the temperature range of Piotrowski would be used in Billings, as explained above.
For the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims over Billings in view of Piotrwoski are not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights