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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrinner et al. (2003/0109611) in view of Eiffler et al. (5,362,783).
Regarding claim 20: Shrinner et al. teach an additive composition comprising diphenyl isodecyl phosphite (DPDP) and the following benzofuranone stabilizer:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Example 1; Table 1].
Shrinner et al. also teach an additive composition comprising the organic phosphite stabilizer Irgafos 168 and the following benzofuranone stabilizer:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Example 2; Table 2].
Shrinner et al. also teach Irgastab PUR 68, which is a commercially available additive composition that comprises the claimed benzofuranone stabilizer and a phosphite stabilizer [0118].
Shrinner et al. fail to teach an organic phosphine.
However, Eiffler et al. teach adding an organic phosphine to an additive stabilizer composition comprising an organic phosphite, such as Irgaphos 168, to stabilize thermoplastic polymers against discoloration (column 1, lines 5-11, column 2, lines 5-15; column 6, lines 37-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an organic phosphine as taught by Eiffler et al. to the additive composition of Shrinner et al. to stabilize against discoloration.
Regarding claim 23: Schrinner et al. teach adding UV absorbers [0094-0102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a UV absorber to the composition of Schrinner et al. to stabilize the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that Eiffler teaches away from the combination of a phosphine with a phosphonite. This is not persuasive because the section cited by the Applicant is referring to the combination of a phosphine with the particular diphosphonate Irgahphos-PEPQ. However, Eiffler specifically teaches that a phosphine can be combine with the phosphite Irgaphos 168 (column 16, lines 55-64). The diphosphonate Irgaphos-PEPQ is a very different structure than the phosphite Irgaphos 168. It is noted that there is not a diphosphonate in the examples of Schrinner et al.
The Applicant has alleged that Eiffler teaches that a phosphine and a hindered phenol provide better results, and that the skilled artisan could not derive any reasonable expectation of success of adding an organic phosphine. This is not persuasive because Eiffler specifically teaches that a phosphine can be combine with the phosphite Irgaphos 168 (column 16, lines 55-64).
The Applicant has made the argument that Eiffler does not suggest that compound A could be used to improve yellowing. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights