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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the non-final Office Action (dated 12 January 2026), the Applicant submits the following:
-- Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations previously established by claim 4.
-- Claims 5 & 7 have been amended to overcome their rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) – said rejection is hereby withdrawn.
-- Claim 4 has been canceled.
-- No new matter has been entered.
The arguments provided by the Applicant have been fully considered & reviewed but are ultimately found unpersuasive in view of the amended claims.
The Applicant states the amended claims now dictate that zinc oxide & zinc carbonate are the only acid scavengers that the composition consists of and said composition comprises no further metallic salts or metal stearates (Remarks, p. 6, top paragraph). The Applicant points to Nip ([0039, [0033]), stating Nip teaches zinc carbonate may be replaced with other zinc amine salts. Applicant reasons this suggests Nip does not clearly and unambiguously disclose any combined use of only zinc oxide and zinc carbonate (Remarks, p. 6, middle paragraph). Applicant states, in view of the amended claims, Nip cannot alleviate the deficiency in Tooley and as such, a combination of Tooley and Nip cannot teach or suggest every limitation of the amended independent claim 1 (Remarks, p. 6, bottom paragraph).
Examiner notes that Nip ([0033]) is an optional disclosure that may be conducted in place of or in addition to heating, that the particles may be formed by addition of acids. This is not a requirement or a preference, as presented by Nip. Examiner notes that Nip ([0039]) is an optional disclosure where Nip states that the zinc ammonia carbonate complex solution can optionally be replaced with other zinc ammine salts, like zinc ammine chloride, zinc ammine sulfate, or a mixture thereof.
The Applicant challenges the combination of Tooley in view of Nip in further view of Goudswaard (Remarks, p. 7, bottom half), stating Goudswaard teaches any desired wt.% zinc content (i.e., 0%-100%), relative to the weight of the zinc additive, is allowable and thus, not obvious (Remarks, p. 8, top paragraph). Applicant reiterates the amended claims comprise no further acid scavengers other than zinc oxide and zinc carbonate and contrasts this with Goudswaard which teaches the zinc additive may be zinc, zinc oxide, zinc acetate, zinc stearate, zinc carbonate, zinc nitrate, or a salt thereof, or a combination thereof and, in view of this, concludes that Goudswaard cannot clearly & unambiguously disclose any combined use of only zinc oxide and zinc carbonate (Remarks, p. 8, bottom paragraph).
Examiner notes the above, however, the above arguments are drawn to the amended claims and Goudswaard is not referenced herein in the same capacity as in the previous office action.
This rejection is FINAL.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tooley et al. (US 2010/0264383 A1) in view of (Bruggemann; Zinc Oxide SDS).
Regarding claims 1, 10 & 11, Tooley teaches a polymeric composition containing zinc oxide particles particularly suitable for use in producing an end-use product, preferably a film (Abstract); said film exhibiting improved transparency (i.e., reduced gloss). The polymer may be polypropylene (p. 1 & 2, [0018]) and processing is conducted via extrusion (p. 5, [0066], [0067]). Tooley is silent on zinc carbonate as required by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bruggemann discloses various Zinc Oxide products which may be used in films and optical products, among those disclosed by Bruggemann includes Zinc Oxide AC 45 (Zinc Oxide SDS, p. 1 & 13). Interestingly, Bruggemann does not teach the zinc carbonate content of AC 45, however, the Applicant discloses this information in the Specification, stating Zinc Oxide AC 45, commercially available from Bruggemann, was used for the composition of zinc oxide and zinc carbonate (p. 17, lines 11 & 12). Applicant discloses the carbon content and theoretical zinc carbonate content to be 0.5 wt.% and 4.7 wt.% (resp.) when AC 45 is used (p. 18, Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use AC 45 (commercially available from Bruggemann) as the zinc component in Tooley, based on art-recognized suitability for its intended purpose, in similar compositions with similar end uses. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification in this way results in methods teaching the manufacturing of polymeric articles exhibiting improved transparency, wherein the polymeric composition comprises polypropylene, and a Zinc additive consisting of 95.3 wt.% Zinc Oxide & 4.7 wt.% Zinc Carbonate, wherein Zinc Oxide and Zinc Carbonate are the only constituents within said Zinc additive (i.e., AC 45, commercially available from Bruggemann). This modification reads on limitations established by the independent base claim 1 as well as claims 10 & 11.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art collectively teaches an identical process employing identical materials in amounts within the claimed range. Although not expressly disclosed, modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann will necessarily result in the type of modification required by the instant claims. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, maintaining the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann previously detailed, Tooley teaches the invention has a BET specific surface area in the range of 10 – 40 m2/g (p. 3, [0038]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, maintaining the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann previously detailed, the incorporation of AC 45 as the zinc additive/component in the invention of the instant application will result in a carbon content of 0.5 wt.%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, maintaining the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann previously detailed, Tooley (p. 4, 0051]) teaches the inclusion of an antioxidant. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tooley et al. (US 2010/0264383 A1) in view of (Bruggemann; Zinc Oxide SDS) in further view of Goudswaard et al. (US 2015/0237866 A1).
Regarding claims 7 & 9, maintaining the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann previously detailed, Tooley is silent about the antioxidants as detailed by the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Goudswaard teaches methods & compositions comprising at least one thermoplastic polymer, a zinc additive and a stabilizer (Abstract). The polymer is polypropylene (p. 1, [0007]). The zinc additive comprises zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, or a combination thereof (p. 1, [0017]). The invention is prepared via melt polymerization with the polymer in a molten state and conducted via single-screw or twin-screw extruders (p. 7, [0092]). Components of the invention may be incorporated into the composition by feeding them directly into said extruder and/or downstream through a sidestuffer (p.8, [0101]).
Goudswaard also teaches the composition may comprise an antioxidant or “stabilizer” (p. 12, [0132]), aligning with teachings from Tooley. In addition to teaching various phosphite based antioxidants suitable in the invention, Goudswaard also teaches a specific antioxidant as pentaerythrityl-tetrakis[3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate (p. 12, [0132]) the same exemplary compound listed in the instant specification (p. 8, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate any one of the stabilizers/antioxidants, taught by Goudswaard, into the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann, as Goudswaard demonstrates their suitability for this use in similar compositions with similar end uses, and doing so further aligns with disclosures from Tooley. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann in further view of Goudswaard as detailed above reads on limitations established by claims 7 & 9.
Regarding claim 8, maintaining the modification of Tooley in view of Bruggemann in further view of Goudswaard previously detailed, Goudswaard teaches diminishing returns result when the zinc particle is present in excess of 3,000 ppm. Table 3 displays various zinc compounds used, the minimum amount shown as 1,000 ppm (p. 21, [0264], Table 3). Thus, Goudswaard teaches the invention comprises zinc particles in amounts of 1,000 ppm – 3,000 ppm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights