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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exists on the examiner to examine all claims. This is not found persuasive because the basis for the restriction is lack of unity. The examiner has shown that claim 1 is not a special technical feature and therefore Groups I and II do not relate to a single general inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/17/2026.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: the abstract is incomplete because it refers to formulae (A) and (B) but there is no other specific information about the structure compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claim 1, “E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, and E13” should have subscripted numbers to be consistent with Formula B. Also, in the last line, the term “at least one antioxidant” has antecedent basis and should be replace with “the at least one antioxidant compound.”
With respect to claim 4, there are improperly two periods in this claim--one at the end of line 3 and the other at the end of the last line. A claim should only have one period because it is a single sentence. Also, in formulae (A-1) and (A-2) there appears to be a typographical error regarding “-n” at the top of each formula.
With respect to claim 6, in line 1, the term “the antioxidant” should be replaced with “the at least one antioxidant compound” to be consistent with previously recited language.
With respect to claim 7, in line 2, the term “the antioxidant” should be replaced with “the at least one antioxidant compound” to be consistent with previously recited language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leppard (US 7,265,171).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 6-8, Example 7 of Leppard includes 0.02 parts by weight hydroxyphenyl-triazine UV absorber “compound j”
PNG
media_image1.png
350
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(col. 7, lines 1-20) reads on claimed formula (A) when E1 is C6 alkyl and E2, E3, E4, and E5 are hydrogen and 0.05 parts of pentaerythrityl-tetrakis-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate as antioxidant ) (col. 33, line 57-63; Figure 1), which provides for a ratio of (A+B) to antioxidant is about 1:2.5.20.
With respect to claim 3, this claim which further limits compound (B) does not exclude the alternative embodiment of compound (A). Since the latter embodiment is disclosed by Leppard, it is proper to include claim 3 in this rejection.
With respect to claim 4, “compound j” is identical to claimed A-2.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppard (US 7,265,171).
The discussion with respect to Leppard in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, Leppard discloses that other suitable triazine compounds include bis(hydroxyphenyltriazine)s such as formula (k)
PNG
media_image2.png
268
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where X can be C1-C18 alkylene-CO- O-D-O-CO-C1-C18 alkylene where D is C2-C12 alkylene (col. 2, line 67; col. 5, lines 1-20; col. 6, lines 10-15).
Lennard fails to exemplify compositions comprising a triazine having claimed formula B-1.
Even so, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a compound of claimed formula B-1 given that Lennard teaches that it is a suitable hydroxyphenyl triazine UV absorber.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Leppard discloses a plurality of optional additives such as thiosynergists including distearyl thiodipropionate (col. 17, lines 9-10).
While Leppard exemplify the addition of thiosynergists, it clearly teaches that suitability of such compounds in the stabilizer composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a thiosynergist such as distearyl thiopropionate in order to provide synergistic improvements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights