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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 and Species C, claims 23-31, 33-36 and 50-51 in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the cited reference does not teach the newly added common technical feature as presently claimed. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the following rejection part in this office action, the cited references teach the common technical features as claimed. Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 32, 37-49 and 52 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 23-31, 33-36 and 50-51 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 24, line 1, “against” should be deleted to make the limitation meaningful. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from the group consisting of … or…” is not a proper Markush group or conventional alternative limitation. Many “or”, “and”, and “and/or” in this claim cause confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and mixtures and combinations thereof” should read either “and mixtures thereof” or “and combinations thereof”, to avoid the redundant wording. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30, “a)” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "the thermal processing of…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 stabilizer can be 80:20 to 20:80 (4:1 to 1:4, page 3). ‘101 also discloses that the composition may also contain other additives (page 4-5).
Conclusion
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