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 .
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111849091 A (Zhou) per IDS of 9/9/2024.
Zhou discloses a stabilizer composition for vinyl chloride resin comprising:
a metal stearate such as calcium stearate (meets Applicants’ fatty acid metal salt);
6-amino-1,3-dimethyluracil (meets Applicants’ uracil compound);
an alkaline substance;
an acetylacetonate such as zinc acetylacetonate (meets Applicants’ zinc acetylacetonate);
an antioxidant; and
a lubricant such as pentaerythritol stearate (meets Applicants’ plasticizer) (e.g., abstract, examples, claims).
Illustratively, in Example 2 [0041-0053] Zhou sets forth a vinyl chloride resin composition wherein the stabilizer composition comprises:
35g of a (2:5) mixture of calcium stearate (meets Applicants’ fatty acid metal salt) and zinc stearate;
1g 6-amino-1,3-dimethyluracil (meets Applicants’ uracil compound);
5g magnesium hydroxide;
2g β-ketone stearyl benzoylmethane;
1g antioxidant pentaerythritol tetrakis[β-(3,5-di-terty-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate];
25g pentaerythritol stearate (meets Applicants’ plasticizer);
3g zinc acetylacetonate (meets Applicants’ zinc acetylacetonate); and
1g perchlorate,
wherein the zinc acetylacetonate content (3g) is 3 times as much as the uracil compound content (1g) (meets Applicants’ requirement that the zinc acetylacetonate content be not less than 0.5 times the uracil content), the calcium stearate content (~10g) is about 3.3 times the zinc acetylacetonate content (3g) (slightly exceeds Applicants’ requirement that the fatty acid metal salt content be no more than 3 times the zinc acetylacetonate content) and the zinc acetylacetonate content (3g) is 3 pbw relative to 100 pbw of the vinyl chloride resin (slightly exceeds Applicants’ requirement that the zinc acetylacetonate content be no more than 2.0 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin).
As to claim 1, with respect to the first difference it would have been within the purview of Zhou’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use lower amounts of the calcium stearate for its expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success. Notably, Zhou discloses that the weight ratio of the calcium stearate and zinc stearate can be (5-10):(20-25). In any event, given that Zhou’s calcium stearate content (~10g) of about 3.3 times the zinc acetylacetonate content is close enough to the presently claimed upper limit of 3, one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l). Regarding the second difference, given that Zhou’s zinc acetylacetonate content of 3 pbw and is close enough to the presently claimed upper limit of 2.0 pbw, one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l). There is at present no evidence of criticality for the presently claimed content parameters.
As to claims 2 and 3, Zhou discloses 6-amino-1,3-dimethyluracil of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
133
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(meets Applicants’ formula (I) where R1 and R2 are each an electron donating CH3 group and R3 is an amino group).
As to claim 4, given that Zhou discloses [0081-0082] that 3g of the stabilizer composition is added to 100g of vinyl chloride resin, in Example 2 the uracil compound content (1g) is 0.1% of the vinyl chloride resin (100g) (meets Applicants’ requirement that the uracil compound content is 0.05 parts by mass or more relative to 100 parts by mass of the vinyl chloride resin).
As to claim 5, Zhou includes calcium stearate in Example 2.
As to claim 6, calcium stearate is based on stearic acid having 18 carbons.
As to claim 9, Zhou discloses [0082] vinyl chloride resin “products”, which are necessarily molded products.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111849091 A (Zhou) described hereinabove in view of JP 2012197394 A (Iwahori) per IDS of 9/9/2024.
As to claims 7 and 8, Zhou discloses that vinyl chloride resins “have a wide range of applications” but does not express disclose powder molding or powder slush molding applications. However, the use of vinyl chloride resin compositions comprising metal salts such as calcium stearate for powder and powder slush moldings is well-known in the art per Iwahori (e.g., abstract, [0001]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Zhou’s stabilized-vinyl chloride resin compositions in powder (slush) moldings with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 10, given that Iwahori discloses the vinyl chloride resin compositions are useful in the production of skin materials and instrument panels for automobiles [0001-0002], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to similarly use Zhou’s stabilized-vinyl chloride resin compositions with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 11 and 12, given that Iwahori discloses the vinyl chloride resin composition can be layered with a foam polyurethane [0001], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to similarly use Zhou’s stabilized-vinyl chloride resin compositions with the reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that Zhou does not teach or suggest a composition that simultaneously satisfies the specific narrow ranges presently claimed is not well taken.
Given that Zhou’s calcium stearate content (~10g) of about 3.3 times the zinc acetylacetonate content is close enough to the presently claimed upper limit of 3, and Zhou’s zinc acetylacetonate content of 3 pbw and is close enough to the presently claimed upper limit of 2.0 pbw, one skilled in the art would have expected similar properties, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (MPEP 2144.05 l). There is at present no evidence of criticality for the presently claimed content parameters.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
