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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 27, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 6, 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 24, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 13, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rzyman et al. (CS-258701, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Rzyman”).
As to Claim 1: Rzyman teaches a stabilizing composition for polypropylene (i.e., a polyolefin-based resin) (Abstract) comprising an isocyanurate anti-oxidant having a formula represented by the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R may be:
PNG
media_image2.png
211
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed General Formula (2) and [chem. 2] (see structures col. 4 of foreign document). Rzyman further teaches that the composition may comprise a compound having the structure of formula (II):
PNG
media_image3.png
158
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein X may be a hydrogen atom or methyl group and A is an acyl radical derived from a saturated or unsaturated carboxylic acid having 2 to 18 carbon atoms (see structure col. 5 of foreign reference, see translated description pg. 2, ln. 14-15 of English translation), which reads on the claimed General Formula (1) and [chem. 1].
As to Claim 2: Rzyman teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Rzyman further teaches that the isocyanurate derivative (that which reads on the claimed General Formula (2), see above) may be used in a concentration in the range of 0.01 to 0.3 by weight and that the piperidine derivative (that which reads on the claimed General Formula (1), see above) may be used in a concentration in the range of 0.05 to 1 wt% (pg. 2, ln. 23-24), the sum of said concentrations, 0.06 to 1.3 wt% total, falls within the claimed range for an amount of light stabilizer (B), which comprises compounds (B-1) and (B-2).
As to Claim 4: Rzyman teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Rzyman teaches that the stabilizing composition is used in polypropylene resins (i.e., a polyolefin-based resin) (Abstract).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzyman et al. (CS-258701, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Rzyman”) in view of Yokota et al. (US20100298473, hereinafter referred to as "Yokota").
As to Claim 3: Rzyman teaches the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Rzyman does not teach wherein the composition comprises an additional benzoate compound having the claimed structure represented by General Formula (3).
Yokota teaches a related stabilized resin composition comprising polypropylene ([0014]), a hindered amine compound, and a benzoate compound ([0008]) represented by the structure ([0032]):
PNG
media_image4.png
351
852
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed General Formula (3) as construed from the instant specification para. ([0046]). Rzyman and Yokota are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, stabilized polyolefin resin compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally include a benzoate compound, such as that taught by Yokota, within the composition of Rzyman and the motivation would have been that Yokota teaches that including a benzoate compound having the claimed structure in addition to a hindered amine compound is recognized within the art as suitable for stabilizing polypropylene compositions and is known to improve resistance to deterioration or discoloration of polyolefin/polypropylene materials upon exposure to environmental conditions (e.g., ultraviolet rays from sunlight and elevated temperatures) ([0004] and [0008]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767