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 .
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (CN 110643179A).
Tu et al. teach a method of adding 0.2 to 0.5 part by weight of an antioxidant to polyphenylene sulfide to enhance the moldability of the polyphenylene sulfide [0004-0005, 0008, 0044; Examples]. Tu et al. teach zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate [0044] as the antioxidant.
Tu et al. fail to specify the alkyl group of the zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate.
However, Tu et al. teach dihexyl as the dialkyl group for an analogous dithiophosphate [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use zinc dihexyl dithiophosphate as the antioxidant in Tu et al.
An alkyl group of 6 carbon atoms is very close structurally to an alkyl group having 8 carbon atoms, and a hexyl group is structurally similar to octyl an octyl group.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).
Regarding claim 11: An alkyl group of 6 carbon atoms is very close structurally to an alkyl group having 10 carbon atoms.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has made the argument that all four of the alkyl substituents must independently have 8 to 20 carbon atoms. This is not persuasive because zinc dihexyl dithiophosphate has the following structure, wherein all four alkyl groups independently have six carbon atoms.
PNG
media_image1.png
164
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant has alleged that MPEP 2144.05 does not apply when there are four ranges. This is not persuasive because whatever the “alkyl group” is in the zink alkyl dithiophosphate will apply to all four carbon chains. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any citations of MPEP or precedent case law to support their position.
The applicant has alleged unexpected results due to the carbon chain length. This is not persuasive for the following reasons.
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided.
With regard to the alkyl chain length, the applicant does not have data to show any difference between a hexyl group and an octyl group. The instant Example in the specification does not even identify the alkyl chain length.
The Applicant has made the argument that Tu teaches the dihexyl group with a copper compound instead of a zinc compound. This is not persuasive because both are metal dialkyl dithiophosphate compounds, which are both utilized as antioxidants. Since Tu is silent on the alkyl group for the zinc compound, it would have been obvious to use dihexyl as the alkyl group since it is utilized in an analgous compound in Tu for the exact same purpose. The only difference is the metal. A difference in metal does not constitute a teaching away as alleged by the Applicant. It is noted that zinc and copper are similar transition metals that are right next to one another on the Periodic Table.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights