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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/23/26 are persuasive and the rejections set forth in the office action mailed 4/23/26 have been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth below. The amendments also overcome the objection to claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 1-5, 7, 12-14, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108976427 A) in view of Ueda (JP 2010-209195 A).
English-language machine translations of Liu and Ueda, which are attached, have been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translations unless otherwise noted.
In paragraph 11 Liu discloses a composition for a modified resin, comprising a linear resin. In paragraph 12 Liu discloses that the linear resin can be nylon 6 and/or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which are thermoplastics and therefore meet the limitations of the thermoplastic carrier of claim 1, as well as 4 for the case where the carrier is a polyester, and where the PET also meets the limitations of the thermoplastic polyester and thermoplastic carrier of claims 7, 12-14, 18, and 20-21.
In paragraphs 30-31 Liu discloses that the composition can further include anhydride-based multifunctional monomers, including various dianhydrides, meeting the limitations of the polyanhydride of claims 1 and 12, and including specific dianhydrides such as pyromellitic dianhydride, meeting the limitations of the tetracarboxylic dianhydride of claims 2, 17, and 20-21.
In paragraph 36 Liu discloses that the anhydride-based multifunctional monomer is present in an amount of 0.5 to 5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the resin, overlapping the range recited in claim 13, and that the antioxidant is present in an amount of 0.5 to 2 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the resin, overlapping the range recited for the antioxidant of claim 13, and leading to a ratio of polyanhydride to antioxidant of 10:1 to 1:4, overlapping the ranges recited in claims 1, 12, and 15, and encompassing the ranges recited in claims 22-23.
In paragraph 56 Liu discloses a polymer foam material prepared from the resin, meeting the limitations of the article of claim 7; when the resin is PET claims 18-19 are met as well. In paragraphs 42-49 Liu discloses melt mixing the components of the composition, including the anhydride-based multifunctional monomer and the antioxidant, with the resin, meeting the method limitation of claim 12.
In paragraph 22 Liu discloses that the antioxidant can be an “auxiliary” antioxidant, but does not specifically disclose secondary antioxidants as defined in the current application.
In paragraphs 11-12 Ueda discloses an extruded foam laminate obtained from a molten resin containing a foaming agent. In paragraphs 27-28 Ueda discloses that the foam preferably comprises a thermoplastic resin, and that suitable resins include nylon 6 and PET, as disclosed by Liu. In paragraphs 54-55 Ueda discloses that the composition can comprise a phosphorus-based stabilizer, meeting the limitations of the secondary antioxidant of claims 1-2, and specifically discloses bis(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphate, as recited in claims 16-17 and 20-21, as well as tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphite, also as recited in claims 16 and 20. The inclusion of the phosphorus stabilizers of Ueda as the auxiliary antioxidant of Liu meets the limitations of claims 1-4, 7, 12-14, and 16-23. Ueda further discloses that the composition can comprise a hindered phenol antioxidant, as does Liu, and the inclusion of both the hindered phenol antioxidant and the phosphorus stabilizer further meets the limitations of claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the phosphorus-based stabilizer of Ueda as the auxiliary antioxidant of Liu, since Ueda teaches that it is a suitable stabilizer for a foam prepared from PET or nylon 6. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a combination of hindered phenol antioxidant and the phosphorus stabilizers, since Ueda teaches that they can both be added to the composition, and Liu teaches that the hindered phenol antioxidant and auxiliary antioxidant have equivalent use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While the PET of Liu meets the limitations of both a thermoplastic carrier and a thermoplastic polyester, claim 15 requires that the polyanhydride and secondary antioxidant be combined with a thermoplastic carrier in a masterbatch, and then the masterbatch is combined with the thermoplastic polyester. Liu only discloses combining the polyanhydride and antioxidant directly with the resin, and does not disclose or render obvious forming the recited masterbatch and then combining the masterbatch with the resin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/23/26 are persuasive. The Irgamod 195 of Peeters does not qualify as a secondary antioxidant within the scope of the claims even though it is a phosphorus-containing antioxidant. The newly applied Liu and Ueda references provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the claimed composition and perform the claimed method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
