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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed August 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 2, 3, 10, 12 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 14 and 15 are pending and under examination.
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.
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, 4-9, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braig et al. (WO 2004/031294) alone or further in view of either one of Henderson et al. (US 2019/0144657) or Van Rheenen et al. (US 2017/0081510).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, 14 and 15, Braig et al. teach a composition comprising polyvinylchloride (PVC) (Abstract; page 59), at least one compound as set forth in formula (A) (A1-A16) (pages 1-16), at least one UV absorber as claimed (page 1, page 10, pages 21-24), and at least one compound as set forth as compound (B) of general formula (III) (pages 58, 59, 92 and 93). The additives are added to a stabilized organic material (e.g. thermoplastic polymers – page 59) to further stabilize the material. (Also see the Examples and claims 1-17). While Braig et al. is understood to teach each of the recited materials of the composition as set forth above, including the usage of each of the materials with thermoplastic to stabilize it, and is also understood to teach utilizing at least the compound of formula (A) and the recited UV absorbers in “iii.” with sufficient specificity to include their utilization in compositions including PVC, Braig et al. do not explicitly teach utilizing or selecting the hindered amine stabilizer shown on page 59, which reads on the claimed compound (B), as the hindered amine stabilizer to be chosen when utilizing PVC as the thermoplastic material. However, Braig et al. do teach each of the materials as set forth above and teaches the further selection of a list of hindered amine stabilizer that can be used to produce the stabilized composition, including compositions based on PVC. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the hindered amine light stabilizer as set forth on page 59 of Braig et al. in combination with the other components set forth by Braig et al., that read upon the other claimed elements, including PVC, for the purpose, as suggested by Braig et al. of further stabilizing the PVC with the disclosed blend of synergistic materials.
Alternatively, each of Henderson et al. (paragraph [0057]) or Van Rheenen et al. (Table 1) disclose analogous compositions wherein PVC is further stabilized with a hindered amine stabilizer having a composition as set forth as compound (B) of general formula (III) (e.g. Tinuvin® 123).
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Braig et al. with either one of the secondary references and to have selected a hindered amine light stabilizer having general formula (III) as the hindered amine light stabilizer of Braig et al., as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing a hindered amine light stabilizer known to be suitable and effective for use in combination with PVC. Braig et al. disclose utilizing an additional hindered amine light stabilizer as part of their composition, including a general disclosure that reads upon formula (III) for the hindered amine light stabilizer, and also disclose the composition can generally include PVC. The secondary references make clear that a hindered amine light stabilizer of general formula (III) is known to be explicitly utilized in combination with PVC. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have selected such a hindered amine light stabilizer from the list of disclosed amine light stabilizers to add to the composition of Braig et al. when utilizing PVC as the material of Braig et al. to be further stabilized and would have had a reasonable expectation of success when doing so.
As to claim 4, Braig et al. teach polyvinylchlorde (PVC) and the general disclosure of PVC would read or at least render prima facie obvious at least one of the claimed “rigid, semirigid, or flexible” materials (page 59).
As to claims 5-7, Braig et al. teach plasticizers and heat stabilizers as claimed (pages 16-27)
As to claim 10, Braig et al. teach the UV absorber as claimed (claims 1-17).
As to claim 11, Braig et al. teach the materials in ratios as claimed (pages 81-83)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous section 112b rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. To the extent the arguments remain applicable in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment above, they are not persuasive. At page 59 of Braig et al., the reference teaches the further addition of a hindered amine light stabilizer to the composition that includes a compound that reads upon general formula (III). Taken alone or in combination with the alternative secondary references, the amended claims are understood to be rendered prima facie obvious by the prior art. It is submitted that absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights