DETAILED ACTION
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
In view of the claim amendments filed on 6/15/2026, the species election requirement issued on 4/15/20206 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: R2 in the formula in page 1 should be R2. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 2020/0231792) in view of Jakupca et al (US 2014/0329943).
Claims 1-3, 5: Alvarez teaches a blown film formed by extruding a composition comprising LDPE, 1000ppm of stabilizer IRGAFOS 168, 500 ppm of IRganox 1010, 1000ppm of PEG 3350 (n=76) and 250 ppm of NA-11
PNG
media_image1.png
283
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0044, 0075, example 46D]. The composition does not contain a fluoro-compound.
Alvarez does not teach a second component like claimed.
However, Jakupca teaches a stabilizer
PNG
media_image2.png
133
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Y is derived from PPG 400, R1, R2, R3 and R4 are derived from a mixture of lauryl alcohol and myristyl alcohol, m is 6-7, Mn of 9111, i.e. x is about 13 (example 2, table 2). Detailed calculation is available upon request. This stabilizer has a lower migration in polyolefin than IRGAFOS 168 (table 10, 0002, 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace IRGAFOS 168 with the stabilizer of Jakupca to reduce migration.
Alvarez is silent with respect to the claimed properties of the film. However, the combination of teachings from Alvarez and Jakupca have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim 4: Alvarez does not teach the salt is in its disassociated form.
However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients, and substantially similar process of making. The original specification indicates that the properties are the result of choosing the claimed components by the claimed process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would implicitly be achieved by the film of Alvarez in view of Jakupca.
Claim 6: Jakupca teaches a stabilizer can be used in an amount of 250-10000ppm [0091].
Claims 1-6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 2020/0231792) in view of Jakupca et al (US 2014/0329943) and Tanaka et al (JPS6114240).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JPS6114240 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12: Alvarez teaches a blown film formed by extruding a composition comprising LDPE, 1000ppm of stabilizer IRGAFOS 168, 500 ppm of IRganox 1010, 1000ppm of PEG 3350 (n=76) [0044, 0075, example 46D]. The composition does not contain a fluoro-compound.
Alvarez does not teach a second component like claimed.
However, Jakupca teaches a stabilizer
PNG
media_image2.png
133
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Y is derived from PPG 400, R1, R2, R3 and R4 are derived from a mixture of lauryl alcohol and myristyl alcohol, m is 6-7, Mn of 9111, i.e. x is about 13 which reads on the claim second component wherein x1 is 0 (example 2, table 2). Detailed calculation is available upon request. This stabilizer has a lower migration in polyolefin than IRGAFOS 168 (table 10, 0002, 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace IRGAFOS 168 with the stabilizer of Jakupca to reduce migration.
Alvarez does not teach a third component like claimed.
However, Tanaka discloses a LDPE composition for extruded film and teaches using a mixture of 1000ppm of calcium salts of ethyl-(4-hydroxy-3,5-t-butylbezodyl)phosphonic acid and 500ppm of Pentaerythrityl tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-t-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate) (i.e. Irganox 1010) to prevent yellowing and thermal degradation during high temperature processing [0001, example 6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add calcium salts of ethyl-(4-hydroxy-3,5-t-butylbezodyl)phosphonic acid into the composition of Alvarez to prevent yellowing and thermal degradation during high temperature processing
Alvarez is silent with respect to the claimed properties of the film. However, the combination of teachings from Alvarez, Tanaka and Jakupca have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim 4: Alvarez does not teach the salt is in its disassociated form.
However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients, and substantially similar process of making. The original specification indicates that the properties are the result of choosing the claimed components by the claimed process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would implicitly be achieved by the film of Alvarez in view of Jakupca and Tanaka.
Claim 6: Jakupca teaches a stabilizer can be used in an amount of 250-10000ppm [0091]. Tanaka teaches the amount of phosphorus compound is 100-10000ppm (page 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights