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
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 3/26/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (WO 2018/180078, citations to US equivalent US 10,844,191 in English) in view of Hase (US 7,893,140).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 4 of Office action mailed on 12/29/2025 and is incorporated here by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the examples of the present specification exhibit unexpected results regarding acid resistance, weathering resistance, tensile strain at break, and bleeding.
The data has been fully considered, however, it fails to establish unexpected results for two reasons. First, the data appears to be expected or optimizable. Regarding acid resistance and tensile strain at break (mechanical properties), Arai discloses that the amount of zinc or hydroxide of magnesium or zinc is used in an amount of 2.0- 30 parts but teaches that an amount of 10 parts by provides excellent in mechanical properties and acid resistance (col. 6, lines 31-36). Therefore, comparative Example 6 comprising 25 parts by mass of metal oxide having undesirable tensile strain at break is expected. Regarding weathering resistance, Hase teaches that the combination of polyacetal having 1.0 mmol/kg or less of hemiformal terminal group, hindered phenol-based antioxidant, hindered amine light stabilizer, and a UV absorber provides for excellent weathering (light) resistance (Table 1 and 2, col. 23, lines 1-9). Therefore, undesirable weathering resistance in comparative examples 1-4 is expected. Regarding bleeding, in comparative examples 8 and 10 with poor bleeding properties, the amount of hindered amine and UV absorber, respectively, are outside of the amount range taught by Hase. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have expected that excess amounts of hindered amine and/or UV absorber would result in bleeding.
Second, the data is not a proper comparison to the prior art. Case law holds that comparative showings must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979). All of the examples in the present specification include a polyacetal having 1.0 mmol/kg of hemiformal terminal group. Arai specifically teaches away from a hemiformal terminal group of greater than 0.8 mmol/kg because acid resistance and moldability are diminished (col. 4, lines 10-28). Therefore, the data regarding acid resistance and other in the present specification of comparative examples of the present specification are not directly comparable to Arai and any deficiency in properties can be directly related to the hemiformal terminal group content of greater than 0.8 mmol/kg.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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