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.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10 and 11 have the wrong status identifier. They are withdrawn from further consideration. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “a hydrocarbon group to be bonded via an oxygen atom”. It is unclear whether the claim is specifying X1/X2 can be a hydrocarbon group bonded via an oxygen atom or if it is referring to some future requirement. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. Removal of the phrase “to be” is suggested to resolve this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (WO 2022/203035 A1) in view of Walton (U.S. Pat. No. 3,929,689). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, EP 4317288 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned EP document.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 5, Fukuzawa teaches expanded polypropylene particles comprising polypropylene resin, hindered amine compound, and other additives (Abstract; Example). Fukuzawa indicates UV absorber is included in amounts spanning 0.01-1 wt% (¶ 83). The compositions can contain pigments such as carbon black or graphite in order to color the resulting foamed material (¶ 95).
Fukuzawa differs from the subject matter claimed in that UV absorber with molecular weight of 360-600 is not described. Walton teaches it was known in the art foamed polyolefin compositions can exhibit improved physical strengths via incorporation of phenylbenzoate UV stabilizers, whereby mechanical properties such as tensile strength are retained after significant UV exposure (Abstract; Col. 4, Lines 45-51; Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the phenylbenzoate stabilizers of Walton within the compositions of Fukuzawa because doing so would improve physical strength while preventing degradation after significant UV exposure as taught by Walton. Walton teaches 2,4-do-t-butylphenyl-3,5-di-t-butyl4-hydroxybenzoate (Table 1), which has a molecular weight of 439 and melting point of 195 degrees C (¶ 79 of the specification).
Regarding Claim 3, Fukuzawa teaches a preference for 0.5-3 wt% of inorganic pigment (¶ 95).
Regarding Claim 4, Fukuzawa teaches a preference for UV absorbing agent to be present at 0.1-0.3 wt% (¶ 83) and for inorganic pigment to be present at 0.5-3 wt% (¶ 95). Thus, Fukuzawa implies ratios spanning 0.1 / 3 = 0.03 to 0.3 / 0.5 = 0.6. The range overlaps that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Fukuzawa suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Fukuzawa. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 6, Fukuzawa teaches the hindered amine compound is present in ranges spanning 1-10 wt% (¶ 63), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Fukuzawa suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Fukuzawa. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 7, Fukuzawa teaches a preference for UV absorbing agent to be present at 0.01-1.0 wt% (¶ 83) and for hindered amine compound in amounts spanning 1-10 wt% (¶ 63). Fukuzawa thus implies ratios spanning 0.01 / 10 = 0.001 to 1 / 1 = 1, which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Fukuzawa suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Fukuzawa. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 9, Fukuzawa teaches the density of the particles can be 400 g/L or less (¶ 90), equivalent to 400 kg/m3 or less. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Fukuzawa suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Fukuzawa. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (WO 2022/203035 A1) in view of Walton (U.S. Pat. No. 3,929,689) and Sasaki (US 2010/0105787 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, EP 4317288 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned EP document.
The discussion regarding Fukuzawa and Walton within ¶ 9-15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Fukuzawa indicates the average cell diameter is not particularly limited (¶ 97), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that 50-80 microns is not described.
Sasaki also pertains to expanded polypropylene beads (Abstract) and notes such beads typically have average cell diameters spanning 30-500 microns so as to prevent low-stage foaming and breaking of cells during molding. (¶ 103-104). The average cell diameter is adjustable per adjustment of base resin, cell control additives, or foam conditions (¶ 105-107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create foam particles with cell diameters spanning 30-500 microns because doing so would prevent low-stage foaming and breaking of cells during molding as taught by Sasaki. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Sasaki suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Sasaki. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (WO 2022/203035 A1) in view of Walton (U.S. Pat. No. 3,929,689) and Roth (EP 2225318 B1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, EP 4317288 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned EP document.
The discussion regarding Fukuzawa and Walton within ¶ 9-15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, Fukuzawa differs from the subject matter claimed in that hindered amine compounds of formula (II) are not described.
Fukuzawa indicates several hindered amine compounds are suitable, inclusive of those taught by Roth / EP2225318 (¶ 68-69). Roth teaches hindered amine compounds such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
488
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ 33), which falls within the scope of Formula (II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the hindered amines of Roth within the compositions of Fukuzawa, thereby predictably affording stabilized compositions in accordance with the teachings of Fukuzawa.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (WO 2020/158749 A1) in view of Samuels (U.S. Pat. No. 6,051,164) as evidenced by ChemNet (UV-1164 Information). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 5, Nakayama teaches expanded polypropylene resin beads comprising carbon black inorganic pigment and a mixture of stabilizers with UV absorber and hindered amine compound (Abstract; Examples; Tables 1 and 2; ¶ 38, 116). To the extent Nakayama differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the use of UV absorber with a molecular weight of 360 or more, Samuels teaches the use of specific stabilizer combinations of hydroxy-tris-aryl triazine stabilizer and hindered amine light stabilizer work synergistically to prevent degradation of mechanical properties such as elongation at break, particularly with respect to polymeric compositions such as polypropylenes (Abstract; Examples; Table 1; Col. 10, Lines 11-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the stabilizer combinations of Samuels within the polypropylene compositions of Nakayama because such stabilizers work synergistically to avoid deterioration of mechanical properties in response to UV as taught by Samuels.
Samuels teaches examples using a combination of Cyasorb 3346 (hindered amine compound) and Cyasorb 1164 (Table 1). As evidenced by ChemNet, Cyasorb 1164 is a triazine compound with a molecular weight of 509.7 and a melting point of 88-91 degrees C. Samuels teaches 50-5,000 ppm of triazine stabilizer is used (Abstract), equivalent to 0.005-0.5 wt%. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Samuels suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Samuels. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Nakayama teaches examples using roughly 2.4 wt% of carbon black (Table 2). Samuels teaches 50-5,000 ppm of triazine stabilizer is used (Abstract), equivalent to 0.005-0.5 wt%. Accordingly, the combination of references is suggestive of ratios spanning 0.005 / 2.5 = 0.002 to 0.5 / 2.5 = 0.2. Such ranges overlap the ranges claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Nakayama suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Nakayama. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 6, Samuels teaches 500 ppm to 1.25 wt% of HALS can be used (Abstract), equivalent to 0.005-1.25 wt%. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Samuels suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Samuels. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 9, Nakayama teaches examples where the bulk density spans 36-72 g/L(Table 3), equivalent to 36-72 kg/m3.
Regarding Claim 12, Samuels teaches the use of Cyasorb UV 3346 / poly[(6-morpholino-s-triazine-2,4-diyl]-[2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)imino]-hexamethylene-[(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl)-4-piperidyl]imino] (Table 1), which is consistent with Formula (II) with the exception that X1 and X2 are hydrogen instead of hydrocarbon or O-hydrocarbon. In this regard, Samuels indicates the piperidyls can be bonded to either hydrogen, alkyls, benzyls, or oxyl (Col. 7, Lines 42-59). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute hydrogens bonded to piperidinyl with either alkyl, benzyls, or oxyls, thereby predictably affording stabilized compositions in accordance with the teachings of Samuels.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (WO 2020/158749 A1) in view of Samuels (U.S. Pat. No. 6,051,164) and Sasaki (US 2010/0105787 A1) as evidenced by ChemNet (UV-1164 Information). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Nakayama, Samuels, and ChemNet within ¶ 25-30 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakayama differs from the subject matter claimed in that a range of average cell diameters is not described. Sasaki also pertains to expanded polypropylene beads (Abstract) and notes such beads typically have average cell diameters spanning 30-500 microns so as to prevent low-stage foaming and breaking of cells during molding. (¶ 103-104). The average cell diameter is adjustable per adjustment of base resin, cell control additives, or foam conditions (¶ 105-107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create foam particles with cell diameters spanning 30-500 microns because doing so would prevent low-stage foaming and breaking of cells during molding as taught by Sasaki. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Sasaki suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Sasaki. See MPEP 2123.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/105,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically, the ‘736 application claims expanded polypropylene beads with inorganic pigment, HALS, and UV absorber with a molecular weight of 360 or more in a content of 0.01-2 wt% (Claims 1-3). The molecular weight range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and the copending application suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the copending application. See MPEP 2123.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fukuzawa fails to suggest UV absorbers having the molecular weight characteristic claimed. This is not found persuasive as such UV absorbers would have been obvious in view of Walton.
Applicant argues Nakayama and Samuels are not combinable because Nakayama pertains to foams whereas Samuels does not. This is not found persuasive. The teachings of Samuels are applicable toward polymer/polyolefin compositions in general (Col. 2, Lines 30-41). Samuels provides no indication that such stabilizer compositions are not usable toward foaming compositions. Applicant has not provided sufficient explanation as to why one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success of achieving synergistic stabilization towards the deterioration of mechanical properties in response to UV simply due to the presence of pores.
Applicant argues Samuels fails to describe foam-specific problems alluded to within the specification. In response, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV).
In response to applicant’s request to hold in abeyance a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD) to the pending ODP rejection, it is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below: “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights