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 Amendment
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is made final.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2007/004764) in view of Watanabe et al (Biobased Coatings Based on Eugenol Derivatives, ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2018, 1, 808-813).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 5 of the Office Action mailed on February 13, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 16-17 in paragraph 3 of the office action mailed on February 13, 2026 has been withdrawn in light of applicants’ clarification on the meaning of “d-valent”.
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Kim does not teach incorporation of a eugenol derivative into an organic material. Kim relates to a method of coating a synthetic resin with a urushi lacquer mixture. The mixture is applied as a coating and not into the bulk of the synthetic resin material.
Examiner’s response: The examiner notes that the urushi lacquer mixture is indeed used to coat a substrate. However, it is noted that the urushi lacquer itself is a combination (or mixture) of urushi and organic material (PMMA and MMA), please refer to pages 3 and 4 of Kim for support. The rejection set forth in paragraph 5 of the office action mailed on February 13, 2026 for more extensive mapping. It is noted that this combination is impervious to oxygen and moisture (Kim, [4]), and therefore, reads on the recited claim.
Applicant’s argument: In Watanabe, the eugenol derivative is coated onto substrates and subjected to various tests as thin films. The substrate itself remains unchanged – only its surface is modified by the coating layer.
Examiner’s response: It is noted that Watanabe is used to only to teach the equivalency of urushi and a compound with the structure of Formula I (eugenol derivative).
Applicant’s argument: Watanabe teaches away from the claimed invention. As the curing process of Watanabe is counterproductive to the claimed stabilization effect of the presently claimed invention. During the necessary curing step in Watanabe, a crosslinking reaction takes place which leads to the consumption of the phenol groups that are active as antioxidants.
Examiner’s response: It is noted that Watanabe is used to only to teach the equivalency of urushi and a compound with the structure of Formula I (eugenol derivative). It seems that even with the curing step, films with the urushiol analogues still retain antioxidant properties (Watanabe, section 3.5). Therefore, applicant’s argument of teaching away is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Neither Kim nor Watanabe teaches the enhancement of the stability of organic materials by incorporation within.
Examiner’s response: Both Kim and Watanabe teach antioxidative properties. Kim in paragraph [4] and Watanabe in section 3.5. And this would include the film itself and the components within the lacquer.
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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights