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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claim 1, the use of different terms to refer to refer to a formula is improper. For instance, both “General Formula (1)” and “[chem. 1]” are used to refer to the first formula. The second formula is similarly improper.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, they are not complete sentences because the steps (1), (2), (3), and (4) are not separated with commas and an “and” after step (3).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, including heading “[a calculation method for L* (0 h) and L* (2,040 h)]” is improper because a claim is a sentence and should not include headings.
With respect to claim 2, the use of different terms to refer to refer to a formula is improper. For instance, “General Formula (1)” and “[chem. 3]” are used to refer to the first formula. The second formula is similarly improper.
With respect to claims 2 and 8, including heading “[a calculation method for ΔE]” is improper because a claim is a sentence and should not include headings.
With respect to claim 4, the use of different terms to refer to refer to a formula is improper. Specifically, “General Formula (3)” and “[chem. 5]” are used.
With respect to claim 7, the use of different terms to refer to refer to a formula is improper. For instance, “General Formula (1)” and “[chem. 6]” are used to refer to the first formula. The second formula is similarly improper.
With respect to claim 8, the use of different terms to refer to refer to a formula is improper. For instance, “General Formula (1)” and “[chem. 8]” are used to refer to the first formula. The second formula is similarly improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, the phrase with parentheses” (including regularly reflected light)” is indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is mandatorily present. If not, then it is indefinite for including a preferred embodiment in a single claim.
With respect to claims 3-6, they are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sukigara (JP 2014-240473, machine translation).
With respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8, and 8, Sukigara discloses a sealing resin sheet containing a polyolefin resin (paragraph 0014) such as polypropylene resin (paragraph 0024). The exemplified formulations are prepared from a masterbatch comprising 90 parts by mass of polyolefin resin, 2.5 parts by mass of a light stabilizer that is bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate (reads on claimed formula (1) when R has 10 carbon atoms) and 2.5 parts by mass of an antioxidant that is n-octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-t-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate (reads on claimed formula (2) when R has 18 carbon atoms) (paragraph 0156). In Table 2 of the original document in Japanese, this exemplified masterbatch (
PNG
media_image1.png
36
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) is added in an amount of 4.0 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of jpolyethylene. Sukigara teaches that the stabilizers improve weather resistance (paragraph 0055).
Sukigara teaches that the stabilizers improve weather resistance (paragraph 0055) but does not explicitly disclose L* (0 h) or LI (2,040 h) or ΔE, i.e., claimed properties which are related to weather resistance.
Sukigara anticipates the claimed ingredients of the composition, and the properties are evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Sukigara inherently has the claimed properties.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed properties given that Sukigara exemplifies a polyolefin formulation comprising the two light stabilizers and teaches that weather resistance is improved.
With respect to claim 6, Sukigara teaches that the composition is formed into a molded article by extrusion (paragraph 0103).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukigara (JP 2014-240473, machine translation) in view of Ayabe (US 2015/0353710).
The discussion with respect to Sukigara in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Sukigara teaches uses other monophenol-based antioxidants (paragraph 0069), however, it fails to disclose a hydroxybenzoate as in formula (3).
Ayabe discloses a polyolefin resin composition comprising a hydroxybenzoate of formula
PNG
media_image2.png
126
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 is an alkyl group having 8-30 carbon atoms (abstract) and teaches that this compound in combination with a hindered amine-based light stabilizer which suppresses initial coloration and has excellent weather resistance (paragraph 0008).
Given that Sukigara is open to the use of a plurality of light stabilizers such as phenol based antioxidants and further given that the claimed compound of formula (3) is particularly useful in polyolefins when used with hindered amines as taught by Ayabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional light stabilizer to the polyolefin composition taught by Sukigara to further improve claimed weather resistance properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (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 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn