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
The amendment filed 1/28/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Claim 20 now incorporates the limitations of claim 24 into independent form while also removing formula (d-3). However, the examiner noted that pertinent prior art also included US 2019/0339617 which teaches an additive for polymer composition that provides stability to light radiation [0161] as Irganox 1076 [0163] which corresponds to formula (d-2):
PNG
media_image1.png
216
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
New rejections are provided below incorporating the stabilizing agent into the previously cited compositions.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-23, 25-30, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20,
Applicant amended claim 24 into claim 20 without correcting the 112 issues of claim 24. Claim 20 (previously claim 24) describes formula (d-2) with “at least one of methyl in the compound…is replaced by hydroxyl or methoxy”. This language is unclear. It may be requiring one of the R groups to be a methyl that is replaced with hydroxyl or methoxy. However, as a compound, the claim is only limited to the actual compound (not the mechanism for reaching the compound). The claim may be simply requiring one of R32-34 to be hydroxyl or methoxy. Additional clarity is required.
Claim 20 also includes a “preferably” clause for formula (d-2) which is ambiguous.
Depending claims incorporate the issues of claim 20 and are also rejected.
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) 20-23, 25-30 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BURTOVYY et al. (US 2020/0199391) in view of KANDANARCHCHI et al. (US 2019/0339617).
Regarding claims 20, 25, and 26,
BURTOVYY teaches a composition that includes a monomer according to formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
126
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the formula the m is 0, 1, or 2, and the R groups are for example hydrogen, halogen, alkyl and alkoxy groups [0011]-[0015]. The R groups can also be a -Z-Aryl which is the same as applicant’s [0015]-[0020]. In addition to the monomer, the composition includes a latent organo-transition metal catalyst and a compound capable of releasing Bronsted acid when subject to photolytic conditions abstract.
The reference does not teach including an absorber compound corresponding to the claimed formula (d-1) or (d-2). However, KANDANARCHCHI teaches using a similar monomer [0050] and including an additive for polymer composition that provides stability to light radiation [0161] as Irganox 1076 [0163] which has formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to formula (d-2) where R32 is forms an unsaturated ring, and the other side of the molecule corresponds to L31 as O; L32 as CH2; and R33 and (CH2)16-CH3. The ring structure further includes the hydroxyl group (-OH) (“replacing” a methyl).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the additive of KANDANARCHCHI in the composition of BUTROVVY to increase stability of the polymer.
Regarding claim 21 and 22,
As described in the rejection to parent claim 20, the composition is taught in modified BURTOVYY. The BURTOVYY reference does not expressly teach the properties of the composition when it has been exposed to a “suitable” radiation. However, the same composition will have the same properties.
Regarding claim 23,
The references teach using a compound that falls within the claimed generic structure for absorber material. The compound within the generic structure is expected to perform the same function when used in the same composition.
Regarding claim 27,
BURTOVYY also teaches an organo-ruthenium or osmium [0132]-[0141] where the X can be halogen or an anionic ligand. The generic formula correspond to applicant’s generic formula [0132]. Y can be O or S [0135]. Y’ and L are the same as claimed Y’ and L [0136]-[0137], and a ligand can be formed X-L [0138]. The remaining R groups, Ar groups and substituents are all the same [0139]-[0142]. The same structure organo-metallic compound is expected to be
Regarding claim 28,
BURTOVYY teaches a compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
126
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the compound Y is a halogen and R30-31 are hydrogen, alkyl, or alkoxy [0150].
Regarding claim 29,
BURTOVYY teaches the ratios of compounds used is a result effective variable and can be employed in any amount to bring the intended result [0160]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the relative loadings of components to obtain a desired result, MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 30,
BURTOVYY teaches viscosity can be 8-12 cP (mPas) at 40°C [0098] which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 39,
The references do not expressly teach the amount of absorber compound that can be added to the composition. However, at the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover a workable amount of additive material to achieve the desired improvement in stability.
Claim(s) 20-23, 25, 26, 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RHODES et al. (US 2021/0079133) in view of KANDANARCHCHI et al. (US 2019/0339617).
Regarding claims 20, 25, and 28,
RHODES teaches a composition according to formula (I) [0030]-[0031]. Formula (I) corresponds to applicant’s formula (I) and is:
PNG
media_image4.png
163
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In formula (I) “m” is similarly 0, 1, or 2 [0033].
R1-4 has significant overlap with applicant’s R1-4 and can similarly be a -Z-aryl [0035]. The Z again has significant overlap with applicant’s Z [0037]-[0038]. Likewise, the R5-6 if used also corresponds to applicant’s R5-6 [0039]. The aryl can be phenyl with some of the same substitutions [0040].
RHODES also teaches a latent catalyst of organo-ruthenium carbide [0097] which corresponds to the latent organo-transition metal catalyst.
RHODES teaches including a photoactive compound [0104] according to formula (V):
PNG
media_image5.png
118
206
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This photoactive compound corresponds to applicant’s compound capable of releasing a Bronsted acid in claim 28 when X is chlorine (a halogen) [0106] and the R30-31 contain overlapping substituent groups [0106].
The reference does not teach including an absorber compound corresponding to the claimed formula (d-1) or (d-2). However, KANDANARCHCHI teaches using a similar monomer [0050] and including an additive for polymer composition that provides stability to light radiation [0161] as Irganox 1076 [0163] which has formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to formula (d-2) where R32 is forms an unsaturated ring, and the other side of the molecule corresponds to L31 as O; L32 as CH2; and R33 and (CH2)16-CH3. The ring structure further includes the hydroxyl group (-OH) (“replacing” a methyl).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the additive of KANDANARCHCHI in the composition of RHODES to increase stability of the polymer.
Regarding claim 21 and 22,
As described in the rejection to parent claim 20, the composition is taught in modified RHODES. The RHODES reference does not expressly teach the properties of the composition when it has been exposed to a “suitable” radiation. However, the same composition will have the same properties.
Regarding claim 23,
The references teach using a compound that falls within the claimed generic structure for absorber material. The compound within the generic structure is expected to perform the same function when used in the same composition.
Regarding claim 26,
RHODES teaches a generic formula (I) where the R groups can be hydrogen [0035]. The resulting structure is the claimed TD. When m is zero the resulting structure is claimed NB. The reference also teaches perfluoro substituents and various alkyl groups.
Regarding claim 30,
RHOADES teaches the composition can be less than 8-12 cP (mPas) at 40°C [0077] which falls within the claimed range.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712