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 preliminary amendment and response filed on April 09, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 11-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 22. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor.
In claim 1, lines 7-12, the following text is new matter “[a structural unit derived from] triethylene glycol bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)propionate, benzoic acid, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-3-benzofuranyl]phenyl ester, 3,9-bis(2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenoxy)-2,4,8,10-tetraoxa-3,9-diphosphaspiro(5.5)undecane, and 2,4-bis [N-butyl-N-(1-cyclohexyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-4-yl)amino]-6-(2-hydroxyethylamine)-1,3,5-triazine”. The original disclosure did not recite the above text and the tradenames of the components in the examples, i.e., PTMEG1000, Deox 105, Revonox 501, etc., do not correspond to these claimed materials. Claims 9 and 11-24 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-12, the phrase “wherein the second polymer comprises a structural unit derived from a first ultraviolet absorber, triethylene glycol bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)propionate, benzoic acid, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-3-benzofuranyl]phenyl ester, 3,9-bis(2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenoxy)-2,4,8,10-tetraoxa-3,9-diphosphaspiro(5.5)undecane, and 2,4-bis [N-butyl-N-(1-cyclohexyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-4-yl)amino]-6-(2-hydroxyethylamine)-1,3,5-triazine” is indefinite. It is not clear how the second polymer is derived from this multi-component listing of materials to form a structural unit. Claims 9 and 11-24 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
In claim 13, line 1, the preamble states “The use of claim 12…” which is indefinite since “use” claims are not proper claims. See MPEP 2173.05(q). This rejection can be overcome by changing the term “use” to “method”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 20 and 21 are dependent upon claim 19 and include the identical article-type Markush group. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 11-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action.
None of the prior art of record disclose or suggests the claimed polymer structure or related method of manufacturing the claimed polymer structure having a visible light transmittance of 65% or more comprising a first thermoplastic aromatic polyurethane and a second thermoplastic aromatic polyurethane having a thickness of 5-200 microns that comprises the claimed first ultraviolet absorber represented by chemical formula (I), wherein the content of the first ultraviolet absorber is from 10-20 wt% of the second polymer. The closest prior art is Chiu et al. (US Pub 2020/0199084), which discloses the claimed UV absorber, but does not disclose or suggest a thermoplastic aromatic polyurethane. Further, Table 1 (pg 20) illustrates the unexpected enhanced yellowness properties, i.e. YI, when using the claimed UV absorber with a thermoplastic aromatic polyurethane in the claimed polymer structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781