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 .
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 the 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 starts with a period.
In claim 8, a comma is missing between “ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer” and “polystyrenes,”.
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 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fortman (US 2019/0194423).
Fortman discloses the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
132
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
138
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Example 2-D of Fortman anticipates instant claims 1-3, 5 and 7-12.
As to claim 6, Fortman discloses that elastomers can also be stabilized using the same stabilizer composition (p. 4).
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigemoto (US 5,100,941).
Shigemoto discloses a stabilized polyolefin resin composition comprising the following:
a polyolefin resin, specifically listed to include homopolymers of ethylene and propylene (col. 3, ll. 6-12);
an alkyl disulfide represented by the formula R1-S-S-R2, where R1 and R2 are linear or branched alkyl groups with 10 or more carbon atoms, preferably 12-18 carbon atoms, specifically listed to include lauryl myristyl disulfide, lauryl palmityl disulfide, lauryl stearyl disulfide, palmityl stearyl disulfide and myristyl palmityl disulfide; and
a triazine compound, exemplified as tris(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzyl) isocyanurate, which is a known hindered phenol antioxidant.
Shigemoto discloses that the polyolefin composition is resistant to heat aging for a long period of time without discoloring (col. 1, ll. 5-11).
Shigemoto anticipates instant claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10-12.
As to claim 4, Shigemoto does not discloses that the alkyl disulfides can be used singly or in combination. This suggests using 100% of the claimed asymmetrical dialkyl disulfides, as a mixture is not required.
As to claim 9, Shigemoto discloses the alkyl disulfide as present in an amount of 0.01-5 phr of the polyolefin resin (claim 14).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemoto (US 5,100,941), as applied above to claims 1-5 and 7-12, and further in view of Giles (US 3,531,483).
Shigemoto anticipates instant claims 1-5 and 7-12, as described above and applied herein as such, as Shigemoto discloses a stabilized polyolefin resin composition comprising an alkyl disulfide, where the alkyl groups have 10 or more carbon atoms and can be different, in combination with a triazine compound.
Shigemoto does not disclose the polyolefins to include elastomers, as claimed in instant claim 6; however, Shigemoto does teach the polyolefins to include copolymers of two of the described alpha-olefins, and ethylene propylene rubber is well known in the art.
Gilles teaches that 4-hydroxybenzyl isocyanurates, which are the triazine compounds of Shigemoto, in combination with organic sulfides (col. 4, ll. 66-73), can be used synergistically to stabilize organic materials which includes homopolymers of ethylene and propylene, as well as rubbers (col. 3, ll. 43-73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an ethylene propylene copolymer or ethylene propylene rubber or other rubbers/elastomers as the polyolefin or organic material for stabilization in the teachings of Shigemoto, as Gilles teaches that rubbers can be stabilized with a combination of 4-hydroxybenzyl isocyanurates (triazines) and organic disulfides.
Shigemoto in view of Gilles is prima facie obvious over instant claim 6.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 3,305,521).
Taylor teaches stabilized synthetic rubbers comprising a stabilizer of the formula shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
142
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Taylor specifically lists octyloxythiocarbonyl 2-nitrophenyl disulfide as a suitable stabilizer, as well as ethoxythiocarbonyl naphthyl disulfide (col. 2, ll. 1-16). Choosing octyloxythiocarbonyl naphthyl disulfide as the stabilizer is prima facie obvious.
Taylor is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1 and 6.
As to claim 4, Taylor does not require a mixture of stabilizers; therefore, choosing 100% of the suggested octyloxythiocarbonyl naphthyl disulfide is prima facie obvious.
As to claim 9, Taylor teaches the stabilizer as being present in an amount of 0.2-3 phr by weight of rubber (col. 2, ll. 62-72).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights