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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2025, 12/20/24 8/26/2024 4/18/2024 considered by the examiner.
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.
INTRODUCTION
The following introduction is expressly incorporated into each and every below rejection as though fully set forth therein.
As below set forth the prior art teaches the claimed compositional components in amounts which meet or overlap and encompass the instantly claimed ranges including but not limited to weight percent and hydrolyzed %
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
The prior art teaches the claimed compositional components. The prior art teaches the composition comprising various alcohols as anti-freeze and other components which may be used in combination. As such it is obvious to use glycerol ethanol and the various propane diols taught therein together as more fully below set forth. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst et al (WO 2022/243610A1)(published 11/24/2022) (effective filing date of instant application 4/19/2023)(Cited on IDS 4/18/2024 – examiner citing to provided documents therewith)
Regarding Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20:
Brandhorst et al (WO 2022/243610A1) discloses a peroxide emulsion comprising:
At least one organic peroxide
At least one no ionic surfactant including at least one fatty chain and HLB of 18 or less
At least one antifreeze (rendering obvious using more than one of the alcohol anti-freeze below set forth)
And water (Abstract)
a) The organic peroxide includes di sec butyl peroxydicarbonate (P3 L108-113) (meeting the limitation of claims 1 and 2 for di sec butyl peroxydicarbonate) di n butyl peroxy carbonate (P4l161-P5L15)in an amount of 40-80 or 44-65 wt.% P3 L113-125) (within the claimed range)
b) the composition comprises 0-1 wt. % of polyvinyl acetate which includes partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate (P12 first par) (meeting claim 1, 20) such as 0.6 wt. of polyvinyl acetate with a hydrolysis rate of 72.5 % by mole (P15 L605 et seq)
c) the composition comprises an emulsifier of a no ionic surfactant including those with ethylene oxide groups (P8 L205-335)(meeting claims 1, 3 and 20) in an amount of 0.1 to 210 or 0.2 to 5 wt.% (P11 L446-450) (overlapping the range of claim 9 and 20)
d) The composition comprises additive in ranges of 0.1 to 10 % or 1 to 5
5 including plasticizers such as di isononyl cyclohexane dicarboxylate (P12 first par) (meeting claim 1 d and 20 in overlapping ranges and meeting claim 15)
e) The composition comprises an alcohol such as ethanol in a mass ratio of less than 1 to the propane diol (i.e. less than 40% overlapping the range of claim 11 and 20)(P7 L255-280) (meeting the limitation of claim 1 and 20 for ethanol)
f) the antifreeze includes propane 1, 2 diol, 1,3 propane diol, and triethylene glycol (P6 L234-P7L267)(meeting the limitations of claim 1 for a C2-6 monohydric or polyhydric alcohol claims 5 and 16) in an amount of less than 40 wt. % (P7 L270-P8 L311) overlapping the range of claims 13 and 20)
g) The composition comprises water (P15 L603 3t seq.)
Claim(s) 6 and 20 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst et al (WO 2022/243610A1)(published 11/24/2022) (effective filing date of instant application 4/19/2023) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-29 above further in view of Gerritsen et al JP 2019 512579 citing to (US 11,059,779) as English translation as cited on ID 7/15/2025 citing to US document as translation)
Regarding glycerol of instant claims 6 and 20
Brandhorst et al (WO 2022243610A1) discloses the limitations above set forth.
Brandhorst discloses the composition comprising at least one alcohol chosen from the group consisting of methanol, ethanol, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol, the latter is present in a mass ratio strictly less than 1, preferably in a ratio less than 0.9, even more preferably less than 0.7 and even more preferably less than 0.5 with respect to said at least one antifreeze
Brandhorst discloses the at least one antifreeze is an alcohol, preferably chosen from the group consisting of diols and mixtures thereof. In embodiments, the at least one antifreeze is selected from the group consisting of propane-1,2-diol, propane-1,3-diol, triethylene glycol and mixtures thereof, preferably is propane-1,2-diol. In embodiments, the at least one antifreeze comprises, preferably consists of, a mixture of propane-1,2-diol and 2-propanol, preferably the mass ratio of propane-1,2-diol to 2- propanol being strictly greater than 1. In embodiments, the mass ratio of propane-1,2-diol relative to 2-propanol is strictly greater than 1 and less than 4, preferably is strictly greater than 1 and less than 2. In embodiments, the at least one antifreeze is present in an amount of 10 to 40 wt.%, preferably 15 to 25 wt.%, more preferably 17 to 22 wt.%, based on the weight total of the emulsion.
Brandhorst does not expressly disclose the composition comprising glycerol
Gerrittsen discloses a peroxide emulsion similar to that of Brandhorst. Gerrittsen discloses the composition comprising
Peroxide 25-70 % (C2 L5-11)
a) Di sec butyl peroxy carbonate (C4 L18-33) 25-70 % (C4 L35-40)
g) Water 20-70 % (C4 L35-45)
d) Di alkyl cyclohexane 1, 2 dicarboxylate such as di isononyl cyclohexane 1 2 dicarboxylate (C2 L18-30) (meeting claim 1 and 20 and 15)
c) emulsifiers such as no ionic emulsifiers (C5 L8-15)
b) 0.5 to 5 % partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate (Claim 16 of reference) degree of hydrolysis is 50-75 mole % (C4 L58-58)
e) and f)
anti-freeze agents including ethanol, propane diol, glycerol (see reference claim 16) (C4 L45-5) at ratio of water anti-freeze of 3/1 and 2/1 (thereby overlapping the claimed range of component f) of the instant claims as water is 20-70 % which includes 10-40 % of combined components e and f)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add glycerol in ranges as taught by Gerritson to Brandhorst as it is an anti-freeze agent suitable for use in emulsions having peroxide cyclohexane dicarboxylate polyvinyl acetate as in both Gerritson and Brandhorst. See Kerkhoven as above set forth. Brandhorst expressly contemplates at least one anti-freeze agent as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add glycerol in the amounts taught by Gerritson to the composition of Brandhorst as it amounts to nothing more than use of a known compound (glycerol) in a known environment (peroxide emulsions) to achieve an entirely expected results (anti-freeze).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerritsen et al JP 2019 512579 citing to (US 11,059,779) as English translation:
Regarding Claims 1-20:
Gerrittsen discloses a peroxide emulsion comprising
Peroxide 25-70 % (C2 L5-11)
a) Di sec butyl peroxy carbonate (C4 L18-33) 25-70 % (C4 L35-40)
b) 0.5 to 5 % partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate (Claim 16 of reference) hydrolyzed at 50-75 mole % (C4 L60-68)
c) emulsifiers such as no ionic emulsifiers (C5 L8-15)
d) Di alkyl cyclohexane 1, 2 dicarboxylate such as di isononyl cyclohexane 1 2 dicarboxylate (C2 L18-30) (meeting claim 1 and 20 and 15)
e) and f)
anti-freeze agents including ethanol, propane diol, glycerol (see reference claim 16) (C4 L45-5) at ratio of water anti-freeze of 3/1 and 2/1 (thereby overlapping the claimed range of component f) of the instant claims as water is 20-70 % which includes 10-40 % of combined components e and f)
g) Water 20-70 % (C4 L35-45)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action
Brandhorst et al WO 2021234312A1 published 11/25/21 (effective filing date of instant application 4/19/2023)
Brandhorst et al discloses an aqueous peroxide emulsion comprising:
A peroxydicarbonate and a peroxyester [0003]
The peroxides includes di sec butyl peroxydicarbonate [0041] [0063][0087]
The composition comprises ethanol, propane 1 2 diol propane 1 3 diol glycerol at least two as the anti-freeze [0089] in amounts of less than 40 % [0090] with less than 10 % ethanol [0091]
A nonionic surfactant [0104] as 0.1 to 10 wt.% [0112]
Polyvinyl acetate [0113]
Plasticizers including di isononyl cyclohexane [0116]
Water [0136]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
