CTNF 18/285,720 CTNF 64082 DETAILED ACTION Status of Application This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 10/05/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, new claims 19-36 are currently pending and under examination herein. 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. However, in the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Information Disclosure Statement(s) The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action. Objection – Claims Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the penultimate line, –or—should be inserted after “atoms,” to clarify that the listed species for R 2 represent alternative selections ( cf ., claim 23, final two lines). Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the final line, the concluding phrase “said ether crown” should be deleted as superfluous, being redundant to “an ether crown,” earlier recited in the same line. Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: insertion of –further—before “comprising” in line 1 is recommended to clarify the introduction of an additional component (“an organic solvent”) to the base composition of claim 19 ( cf. , claim 29, line 1). Appropriate correction of the aforementioned claims is required. Common Ownership Notice 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 19-23, 25-26, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by RED CATALYST 11 Material Safety Data Sheet, Arkema, Inc. (hereinafter, ‘Arkema’) . Regarding Claims 19 and 25 , Arkema has already described a RED CATALYST 11 product as having a composition comprising at least one aromatic peroxide comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one peroxo -O-O- function in its structure, namely cumene hydroperoxide [for claim 25] and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide; wherein the cumene hydroperoxide and the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide are present in the composition at respective concentrations well within the claimed ranges for corresponding components a) and b), specifically 44 wt% and 17.5 wt% (see section 2: COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS). Regarding Claims 20-23 , the cumene hydroperoxide ingredient of the Arkema composition qualifies as a species of “aryl hydroperoxides” as per claim 21 and is encompassed by claims 20 and 22. In addition, cumene hydroperoxide corresponds to recited formula (I) [for claim 23] where R 1 represents a linear or branched C 1 -C 20 alkyl radical terminated with an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms and R 2 represents a hydrogen atom. Regarding Claim 26 , the reported percentages of methyl ethyl ketone peroxide and cumene hydroperoxide in the Arkema composition equate to a weight ratio of 0.4:1 [17.5:44 = 0.3977], a value well within the claimed range. Regarding Claim 28 , the Arkema composition further comprises hydrogen peroxide (see section 2). Regarding Claim 30 , the Arkema composition further comprises 2.4% cumene and 0.6% acetophenone (see id .) which respectively qualify as species of “a hydrocarbon solvent” and “a ketone solvent” as claimed. Regarding Claim 31 , Arkema in section 1 gives the product name of CATALYST 11 as “Mixture-MEK Peroxides and Cumene Hydroperoxide,” and it is implicit that the composition subsequently described in section 2 is made by mixing the listed ingredients, which include at least one aromatic peroxide, as defined according to claim 19 ( viz ., cumene hydroperoxide) and at least one ketone peroxide as defined according to claim 19 ( viz ., methyl ethyl ketone peroxide). As such, Arkema is seen to effectively describe the claimed method. Regarding Claim 32 , Arkema in section 1 mentions “polymerization initiator” as sole Product Use. Such utility, coupled with the composition described in section 2, effectively describes use of the composition in a method for preparing a polymer, as claimed . 07-15 AIA Claim s 19-23, 25, 28, 30, 32-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by AkzoNobel SAFETY DATA SHEET: TRIGONOX 178 (hereinafter, ‘AkzoNobel’) . Regarding Claims 19 and 25 , AkzoNobel has already described TRIGONOX 178 as a composition comprising at least one aromatic peroxide comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one peroxo -O-O- function in its structure, namely cumene hydroperoxide [for claim 25] and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide; wherein the cumene hydroperoxide and the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide are present in the composition at respective concentrations well within the claimed ranges for corresponding components a) and b), specifically 30 - 50 wt% and 10 - 20 wt% (see section 3: COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS). Regarding Claims 20-23 , the cumene hydroperoxide ingredient of the AkzoNobel composition qualifies as a species of “aryl hydroperoxides” as per claim 21 and is encompassed by claims 20 and 22. In addition, cumene hydroperoxide corresponds to recited formula (I) [for claim 23] where R 1 represents a linear or branched C 1 -C 20 alkyl radical terminated with an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms and R 2 represents a hydrogen atom. Regarding Claim 28 , the AkzoNobel composition further comprises 1 – 5% of hydrogen peroxide (see section 3), as claimed. Regarding Claim 30 , the AkzoNobel composition further comprises 1 – 5% cumene and 1 - 5% methyl ethyl ketone (see id. ) which respectively qualify as species of “a hydrocarbon solvent” and “a ketone solvent” as claimed. Regarding Claims 32/33 and 36 , AkzoNobel describes the composition as defined according to claim 19 as discussed above. AkzoNobel further describes TRIGONOX 178 as a convenient pre-blended initiator suitable for curing unsaturated polyester, vinyl ester and acrylic thermosetting resins at ambient conditions in conjunction with a metal salt (see page 2/2, Applications). As such, AkzoNobel effectively describes using a composition as per claim 19 as a curing agent in a method for the preparation of a polymer resin [for claims 32/33], resulting in a polymer resin composition comprising at least one composition as defined in claim 19 and at least one polymer resin [for claim 36] . 07-15 AIA Claim s 19-24, 26, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Maginn, et al (US 3113114) (hereinafter, ‘Maginn’) . Regarding Claims 19, 32 and 34 , reference to Maginn relates to initiator systems for acrylic polymerization, with a stated object being to provide methacrylate compositions containing initiator systems to effect synergistically the polymerization of the ester at high rates (col. 1, Title and lines 56-59). Maginn in Tables I and II records gel times for a series of perester and ketone peroxide initiator(s) in polymerizing partially polymerized methyl methacrylate compositions (col. 7, line 57 et seq . and col. 8, lines 1-38) [for claims 32/34]. Examples 9, 16 and 17 of Table II respectively describe initiator systems comprising 80% benzoyl peroxide (A)/20% methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (B), 63% (A)/27% (B)/10% tert-butyl peracetate (C), and 60% (A)/20% (B)/20% (C), wherein the percentages are by weight (col. 7, lines 56-58). Benzoyl peroxide is a species of claimed component a) (i.e., aromatic peroxide comprising at least one aromatic ring and at least one peroxo -O-O- function in its structure) and the respective concentrations of benzoyl peroxide and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide used in these examples fall well within the claimed ranges for corresponding components a) and b). Regarding Claims 20-22 , the benzoyl peroxide initiator used in aforementioned examples of Maginn qualifies as a species of “aromatic peresters” and “aromatic diperesters” for claims 21-22, respectively, and comprises at least one benzene ring, per claim 20. Regarding Claims 23-24 , the benzoyl peroxide initiator used in aforementioned examples of Maginn corresponds to recited formula (I) where R 1 and R 2 respectively represent a -C(=O)R’ 1 group, wherein R’ 1 denotes an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms, and a -C(=O)R’ 2 group, wherein R’ 2 denotes an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms. Regarding Claim 26 , the reported percentages of benzoyl peroxide (A) and methyl ethyl ketone (B) used in aforementioned examples of Maginn equate to weight ratio values well within the claimed range; for example, the 80% (A)/20% (B) used in Example 9 thereof equates to a weight ratio of 0.25 [20:80 = 0.25:1]. Regarding Claim 31 , the initiator systems used in aforementioned examples of Maginn were necessarily formed by mixing the named peroxides, which include at least one aromatic peroxide, as defined according to claim 19 ( viz ., benzoyl peroxide) and at least one ketone peroxide as defined according to claim 19 ( viz ., methyl ethyl ketone peroxide). Indeed, Maginn generally describes that certain mixtures of two or more peroxide initiators are more effecing in producing polymerization than the individual components (col. 1, lines 45-49). As such, Maginn is seen to effectively describe the claimed method. Regarding Claim 35 , Maginn describes claimed mixing step, which corresponds to that recited in claim 31, as discussed above. While Maginn is admittedly silent as to improving color stability or decreasing APHA values of the at least one aromatic peroxide, this result is seen as merely the recognition of a new or latent property of the old initiator compositions as described in aforementioned examples of MaGinn. That is, the claim preamble is merely directed to the result of mixing the at least one aromatic peroxide (e.g., benzoyl peroxide) and methyl ethyl ketone in weight percentages as described in MaGinn. See MPEP 2112.02(II) (when claim recites using old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated) . Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19-24, 26, 31-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwatari, et al (EP 0343747 A2) (hereinafter, ‘Ishiwatari’) . Regarding Claims 19, 32 and 33 , reference to Ishiwatari relates to a peroxide composition useful as a curing agent for a polyester putty or fiber-reinforced plastics (p. 2, lines 1-2) [for claims 32/33]. In particular, Ishiwatari is directed to improving the stability of a composition containing both a ketone peroxide (KPO) and a benzoyl peroxide (BPO) by using aliphatic dibasic acid esters, aliphatic monobasic acid esters or mixtures of both in the preparation of a liquid ketone peroxide such as methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP), methyl isobutyl ketone peroxide (MIBKP), cyclohexanone peroxide (CYHP) or methylcyclohexanone peroxide (MCYHP) (p. 3, lines 37-40). Ishiwatari provides concrete examples reporting storage stability data for compositions containing both BPO and MEKP or MIBKP (see p. 7, Table 2: Examples 1-7 and 10-15). However, the composition used in each example was obtained by mixing the BPO and KPO each in an amount of 110 g, resulting in a composition containing a 50/50 wt% concentrations of BPO and KPO (p. 5, lines 54-55). Ishiwatari differs from the claimed subject matter in failing to specifically disclose a composition comprising at least one ketone peroxide at a concentration ranging from 0.1 to 30% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition. Nevertheless, Ishiwatari teaches preference for a weight ratio of BPO to KPO that lies between 10:90 to 90:10, from the standpoint of curing characteristics (p. 3, line 50 et seq .). The disclosed weight ratio range substantially overlaps the ranges recited in claim 19 for concentration of aromatic peroxide and ketone peroxide, and it has consistently been held that even a slight overlap in ranges establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, is prima facie obvious, see In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1936 (claimed invention rendered obvious by prior art reference whose disclosed range (“about 1-5% carbon monoxide”) abutted the claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide) and In re Geisler , 43 USPQ2d at 1365 (acknowledging that claimed invention rendered prima facie obvious by prior art reference whose disclosed range (50-100 Angstroms) overlapped the claimed range (100-600 Angstroms)). Regarding Claims 20-22 , the BPO initiator used in aforementioned examples of Ishiwatari qualifies as a species of “aromatic peresters” and “aromatic diperesters” for claims 21-22, respectively, and comprises at least one benzene ring, per claim 20. Regarding Claims 23-24 , the BPO initiator used in aforementioned examples of Ishiwatari corresponds to recited formula (I) where R 1 and R 2 respectively represent a -C(=O)R’ 1 group, wherein R’ 1 denotes an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms, and a -C(=O)R’ 2 group, wherein R’ 2 denotes an aryl group having from 6 to 32 carbon atoms. Regarding Claim 26 , Ishiwatari in a footnote to Table 2 discloses that in Examples 1 to 15, the ratio of BPO to KPO is 1:1 (see p. 7), a value coinciding with the upper endpoint of claimed weight ratio range. Regarding Claim 31 , Ishiwatari describes preparing the compositions used in Examples 1 to 15 by mixing BPO (as “at least one aromatic peroxide”) and KPO (p. 5, lines 53-55), wherein the KPO used in at least Examples 1-7 and 10-15 is methyl ethyl ketone peroxide or methyl isobutyl ketone peroxide, as claimed. Regarding Claim 36 , Ishiwatari renders obvious the composition as defined in claim 19 as discussed above. Ishiwatari further discloses a polymer resin composition comprising said composition and at least one polymer resin, such as polyester putty as per Application Examples 4-6, 8-10 and 12-14 (see p. 11, Table 6). Potentially Allowable Subject Matter Claims 27 and 29 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. The closest prior art to Arkema, AkzoNobel, Maginn and Ishiwatari, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 27 and 29, or provide proper rationale to modify any of their respective disclosures into the invention of instant claim 27 or 29. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 /FMTeskin/05-28-26 . Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 2 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 3 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 4 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 5 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 6 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 7 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 8 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 9 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 10 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 18/285,720 Page 11 Art Unit: 1762
Prosecution Insights