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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 09/08/2026 have been entered. Claims 23-31, 33-36 and 50-51 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 23-31, 33-36 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (EP0662101, of record, IDS 03/20/24, ‘101 hereafter, citation please see English translation) in view of Stippschild-Boxler et al (US 2021/0395419, ‘419 hereafter) and Li et al (WO 2015/032033, of record, IDS 03/20/24, ‘033 hereafter).
Regarding claims 23-31 and 50-51, ‘101 discloses a method of stabilizing a halogen-free thermoplastic plastic (pages 2-6). The method comprises a step of combining a polyolefin recyclate such as PP, HDPE, LDPE, or PS and their blends (page 3), satisfying present claim 35; with at least one stabilizer as a primary one primary antioxidant being phenolic antioxidants satisfying present claims 29-31 (page 34, the listed compounds include most of the phenolic compounds as in the present claims 30 and 31); and at least one phosphite compound (page 4). ‘101 does not set forth that the stabilizer composition includes a sulfite or thiosulfate in combination with the phenolic antioxidant. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘419 teaches both phosphite compound and sulfite compound can be used as stabilizers in a polymer composition ([0033]-[0037], [0298]-[0315]); wherein the phosphite and sulfite compound can be either an organic or inorganic compound, and the inorganic sulfite compound can be lithium sulfite, sodium sulfite, potassium sulfite or calcium sulfite or mixture thereof ([0314]), without containing water, satisfying present claims 25-28. In view of ‘419 recognition that phosphate compound and sulfite are equivalent and interchange-able as stabilizers in a polymer composition, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute phosphite compound with sulfite compound, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.06". In addition, ‘033 teaches a stabilizer (antioxidant) composition having a combination of phenolic compound with sulfite compound such as sodium sulfite, which provides better thermal stability and decrease yellowing of a polyolefin composition, and the sulfite compound can react with oxygen from air to protect polymer resin (abstract, page 1-3, Examples). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use sulfite compound to combine with phenolic compound as taught by ‘419 and ‘033, to modify the method of ‘101, in order to improve the thermal stability and reduce yellowing of the halogen-free thermoplastic recyclate. Since the prior art composition contains stabilizer as presently claimed, it is expected to against oxidative degradation and stabilize the composition during thermal processing of the recyclate which satisfies the limitations of present claims 23 and 51.
Regarding claims 33-34 and 36, modified ‘101 teaches all the limitations of claim 23, ‘101 also discloses that the composition contains 0.01 to 10 % by weight of the stabilizer (page 2) and the weight ratio of the two stabilizers can be 80:20 to 20:80 (4:1 to 1:4, page 3). ‘101 discloses that the composition may also contain other additives (page 4-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/08/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not render obviousness of presently claimed subject matter for the reasons (a) to (d). Regarding applicant’s reasons (a) and (b), the examiner’s position is that a comparison of one sulfite compound with one phosphite compound used in one thermoplastic is not sufficient to establish that all the sulfite compound and/or all thiosulfate as presently claimed having better synergistic effect with an antioxidant than all phosphite compound with an antioxidant in all kinds of halogen-free thermoplastic resins. In addition, without limiting the amount being used in the composition, the combination of phenolic antioxidant plus phosphate can also keep the same lave of MVR after five extrusions as shown in Comparison Example 5 as in the present application. Furthermore, cited prior art ‘033 also teaches that the combination of phenolic compound with sulfite compound providing better thermal stability of halogen-free thermoplastic resin such as polyolefin, is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use this combination to improve recycled halogen-free thermoplastic resins (majority component is still thermoplastic resin). Regarding applicant’s reasons (c) and (d), the rejection as drafted does not require directed teachings of combination of sulfite with a primary antioxidant and the composition comprising a thermoplastic from ‘419. The prior art ‘419 is cited to show that it is known in the art that both phosphite compounds and sulfite compound are commonly used as stabilizers in a polymer resin composition to improve stability of the composition, which has similar polymer resin stabilization function and can be interchangeable with each other in a polymer resin composition to provide similar stabilization effect on the polymer resin composition.
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights