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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannle (US 2006/0252862) in view of Lindeman (WO 2019042999 cited by the applicants)
With respect to claim 1, Mannle discloses an additive for thermoplastic which includes making a master batch comprising thermoplastic polymer (see examples). The additive comprises reaction product of ferric salt and fatty acid as well as UV absorber and radical scavenger [0019]. The master batch is granulated before it is incorporated into polymer.
The content of additives in master batch includes 57% phosphine stabilizer (free radical scavenger), 28% hindered phenol and 15% benzofuranone stabilizer (UV absorber). The additives are sold under tradename Irgafos or Irganox (see Table 3) in form of the granules, wherein largest particle size is 50 microns or less (see manufacturer’s website).
Mannle discloses additive that is utilized with thermoplastic resin; however the only examples are polyethylenes and polypropylene.
In the same field of endeavor which includes making films Lindeman discloses combination of the same additives which includes UV absorber and radical scavenger. The additives are incorporated into mixture of ethylenically unsaturated (vinyl) monomers.
The polymers of Lindeman are formed from monomers such as methyl methacrylates and 0.1-20 wt.% of multifunctional monomers which include divinyl benzene, diacrylates, triacrylates and the like.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize thermoplastic polymers of Lindeman with the additive of Mannle. The additive will still provide the same result to the thermoplastic polymers of Lindeman. Additionally, Mannle clearly teaches thermoplastics which includes not only acrylates but many others. Additionally Lindeman teaches incorporating additive composition into polymeric carrier (master batch) in the amounts that encompass the amounts disclosed in Mannle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 October 17, 2027