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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (KR 2019/0121249 A, hereinafter referring to EP 3,783,062 A1 as the English language equivalent) in view of Kim (KR 2020/0074020 A, hereinafter referring to US 2021/0214524 A1 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a vinyl chloride resin composition for wallpaper (Abstract), comprising 100 parts of a vinyl chloride resin, 50 to 90 parts of a plasticizer, and 5 to 20 parts of a carboxylic acid ester-based viscosity depressant which may be, inter alia, di(2-ethylhexyl)cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylate (([0010]). The carboxylic acid ester-based viscosity depressant therefore reads on the claimed “cyclohexane dicarboxylate-based compound” represented by the claimed “chemical formula 1.” Jang teaches that the formulation may further comprise a stabilizer ([0052]), which may include Na-Zn-based compounds and Ba-Zn-based compounds ([0053]), which may be used in combination as mixtures of two or more ([0053]).
Jang differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of an epoxidized vegetable oil plasticizer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a plasticizer composition superior to phthalate-based plasticizers in various metrics (Abstract). The composition is taught as being used in polyvinyl chloride compositions ([0003]). The plasticizer composition contains cyclohexane diesters ([0008]) and may incorporate an additional plasticizer which may be an epoxidized oil ([0030]) such as epoxidized soybean, castor, linseed, or palm oils and epoxidized stearate, oleate, tall oil, and linoleate, inter alia ([0072]). Kim further teaches that the incorporation of the epoxidized oil allows for improved thermal stability, volatile loss, oil resistance, and absorption rate of the composition to be improved ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate epoxidized oil, as taught by Kim, within the formulation of Jang for the purpose of improving the thermal stability, volatile loss, oil resistance, and absorption rates of the PVC composition.
Regarding the limitations requiring that the plasticizer components are selected from the claimed lists, Jang teaches the use of di(2-ethylhexyl)cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylate ([0010]) and Kim teaches that the additional epoxidized oil may be epoxidized soybean, castor, linseed, or palm oils and epoxidized stearate, oleate, tall oil, and linoleate, inter alia ([0072]).
Regarding the limitation requiring the claimed compositional range of plasticizer, Jang teaches the incorporation of 5 to 20 parts by weight of the carboxylic acid ester-based viscosity depressant per 100 parts by weight of the vinyl chloride resin ([0010]). Also as described above, Kim exemplifies the incorporation of half as much epoxidized soybean oil compared to the amount of diester included in the formulation (p. 7, Table 1, Example 8). A composition containing 5 to 20 parts of the carboxylic acid ester-based viscosity depressant and half as much of the epoxidized soybean oil would therefore contain about 7.5 to 30 parts of the claimed “plasticizer” per 100 parts of the vinyl chloride resin, which overlaps the claimed range of “20 parts by weight to 75 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the limitation requiring the claimed compositional range of thermal stabilizer, Jang teaches the incorporation of 0.5 to 7 parts by weight of the stabilizer per 100 parts of the vinyl chloride resin ([0054]), which encompasses the claimed range of “2 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the limitation requiring the claimed relative amounts of the two thermal stabilizers, Jang does not expressly disclose the claimed amounts of each of the Ba-Zn and Na-Zn compounds. Nevertheless, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Jang discloses the Ba-Zn and Na-Zn compounds as equally suitable alternatives to one another and therefore recognizes the equivalence of the two. It would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine these two compounds in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. This incorporation of 50 parts by weight of each with respect to 100 parts by weight in total of the two (which is a 1:1 ratio), falls within the claimed ranges of “30 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight,” “50 parts by weight to 70 parts by weight,” and “30 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Kim exemplifies the usage of epoxidized soybean oil in an amount of 20 parts per 40 parts of a cyclohexane diester (p. 7, Table 1, Example 8), which equates to about 33.3 parts by weight per 100 parts of the claimed “plasticizer,” and which therefore falls within the claimed range of “30 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches that the polymerization degree of the vinyl chloride resin is 700-1,700 or an average molecular weight of 45,000 to 200,000 (p.16, claim 2), both of which fall within the claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the optional addition of fillers and pigments ([0003, [0005], and [0052]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Jang teaches the formation of a wallpaper, flooring, artificial leather, and automobile part, inter alia ([0069]), all of which read on the claimed “molded article.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 01, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the scope of the claims has been narrowed for the sake of asserting evidence of unexpected results. However, as stated previously, the evidence of record must be commensurate in scope with the claims to be sufficient to rebut a prima facie determination of obviousness. Importantly, while the applicant refers to examples 1-5 of the instant Specification in support of the assertions of unexpected results, examples 3 and 5 contain 75.2 phr of plasticizer and therefore fall outside of the scope of claim 1 which requires between 20 and 75 phr of plasticizer. The remaining compositions do not represent results which are commensurate in scope with the claims: plasticizer amounts of 32.5, 47, and 55 phr do not cover the claimed range of 20 to 75 phr and the relative amounts of each of the two types of thermal stabilizers is 1:1 (or 50:50) in each case, despite the claims being open to ranges from 30:70 to 50:50. Furthermore, the data provided shows results for a single PVC resin and a single cyclohexane-1,2-diester-based plasticizer (DEHCH), despite the claims being open to virtually any PVC resin and any compound falling within the scope of claimed “Chemical Formula 1.”
The Applicant need not provide evidence for every possible composition as claimed, but the data provided is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claims, and thus the data provided is insufficient to rebut a prima facie determination of obviousness.
Applicant’s remaining arguments assert that Jang fails to teach the claimed combination of stabilizers. However, as described above and previously, Jang teaches both of the claimed stabilizers, and specifically teaches the incorporation of combinations of stabilizers ([0053]). Furthermore, while Kim only exemplifies the use of a single stabilizer, patents are relevant as prior art for all of the information that they contain, and non-preferred and alternative embodiments nonetheless constitute prior art (see MPEP 2123.I and II). The presence of example formulations which do not disclose the use of combinations of stabilizers does not rebut the specific disclosure thereof. Since Jang teaches both stabilizers and teaches that stabilizers may be combined, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed combination despite Jang not explicitly stating or exemplifying said combination. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the two stabilizers in equal amounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights