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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of polypropylene for the Species A, and ethoxylated and/or propoxylated C16/C18 alkyl alcohol for the Species B, in the reply filed on 03/11/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 17, 19 – 21 and 24 – 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation “the polymer composition further comprises 0.01 to 25 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.01 to 10 wt.%, preferably 0.02 to 5 wt.%, and more preferably 0.05 to 3 wt.%,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as “the polymer composition further comprises 0.01 to 25 wt.%.”
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. As currently claimed, claim 50 depends upon claim 49, which has been cancelled. 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. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as being dependent from dependent claim 48, which discloses the claimed 2-(2-‘hodroxyphenyl)-s-triazine.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, 12 – 13, 15 – 16, 27 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maziers (US 2013/0093118 A1), in view of ENG et al. (US 2016/0145427 A1), and further in view of Chaudhary et al. (US 2002/0077401 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maziers teaches a rotational molding process for producing a hollow article [0001-0003], the process comprising the steps of:
a) filling a mold with a polymer composition [0071] comprising:
i) an organic polymer (e.g., “polypropylene” [0055, see 0031 – 0063]; and
ii) a rotational molding densification accelerator (RMDA) (e.g., “densification aid,” “processing aid” [0068, 0071], see [0031 – 0073]);
b) rotating the mold around at least one axis while heating the mold [0072, 0102], thereby fusing the composition and spreading it to the walls of the mold [0074];
c) cooling the mold [0074];
d) opening the mold [0074]; and
e) removing the hollow article from the mold [0074].
Maziers does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotational molding densification accelerator (RMDA) is selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated aliphatic alcohols, alkoxylated aliphatic esters, alkoxylated aliphatic amines, alkoxylated aliphatic amides, and combinations thereof, and heating the mold in an oven.
Maziers, however, discloses that “It is also possible to use a polyolefin comprising a densification aid as one or more layers of a multilayered rotomolded article with the other layers comprising a polymer preferably selected from the group consisting of polyamide, copolyamide, a second polyolefin different from the first one, copolymers of ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA), copolymers of ethylene and vinyl alcohol (EVOH), polystyrene, polycarbonate and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)” [0068], “[0071] The use of a processing aid according to the present invention results in cycle time reductions of at least 10%, preferably by at least 20%” [0071 – 0079], and further discloses “a heating system (4)” [0102], see FIG. 2.
Like Maziers, ENG et al. teaches “stabilizer compositions and processes suitable for use with, and readily adapted to, any industrial polymeric molding process including, but not limited to” -inter alia- rotomolding [0145] (i.e., a rotational molding process; see also [0308]). ENG et al. discloses that that certain “co-active agents,” “(some of which are known in the art as surface active agents being useful at various concentrations for providing antifogging, antistatic, or slip properties to polymeric resins containing same) have a synergistic effect on the stabilization properties of UV absorbers, particularly when combined with radical stabilizers such as hindered amine light stabilizers, and are effective for stabilizing a variety of organic materials susceptible to the deleterious effects caused by prolonged exposure to heat and/or light such as from electromagnetic radiation.” [0014 – 0018] – (said “co-active agents” been analogous to the claimed “rotational molding densification accelerator (RMDA)”);
[0040 – 0050] the co-active agent can be selected from the group consisting of -inter alia- “C12-C60 alcohols; alkoxylated alcohols or monoalkyl ethers thereof; alkoxylated esters of fatty acids; alkoxylated fatty amines, esters thereof, or salts thereof; sugar esters; alkoxylated fatty amides; alkoxylated natural oils; ethylene oxide/propylene oxide copolymers; and mixtures thereof.”;
[0051] the co-active agent can be “alkoxylated with one or more alkoxide. In some embodiments, the co-active agent according to Formula (III) can be ethoxylated. In other embodiments, the co-active agent according to Formula (III) can be propoxylated. In the same or other embodiments, the co-active agent according to Formula (III) can include a mixture of ethoxylated alcohols and propoxylated alcohols, or can be an alcohol that is both ethoxylated and propoxylated.”;
[0054] the co-active agent can be selected from one or more of the following “ethoxylated and/or propoxylated alcohols, wherein the alcohol is chosen from” -inter alia- “C16/C18 alcohol mixtures”. See [0038 – 0059].
Therefore, 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 modify in the same way, the rotational molding densification accelerator (e.g., Maziers “densification aid,” “processing aid”) in the rotational molding process for producing a hollow article of Maziers with the co-acting agent of ENG et al., from the group consisting of alkoxylated aliphatic alcohols (ENG et al. [0042 – 0044]), alkoxylated aliphatic esters (ENG et al. [0040]), alkoxylated aliphatic amines (ENG et al. [0040]), alkoxylated aliphatic amides (ENG et al. [0040]), and combinations thereof, as taught and suggested by ENG et al. [0038 – 0059], for the purpose of, as suggested by ENG et al., provide the polymer composition with said co-acting agent’s “synergistic effect on the stabilization properties of UV absorbers, particularly when combined with radical stabilizers such as hindered amine light stabilizers, and are effective for stabilizing a variety of organic materials susceptible to the deleterious effects caused by prolonged exposure to heat and/or light such as from electromagnetic radiation.” ENG et al. [0014 – 0018], since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
As to the limitation “heating the mold in an oven.”
Like Maziers and ENG et al., Chaudhary et al. teaches a method of rotational molding using the composition with improved impact properties and the composition with improved processability [0117], and discloses that “The mold is typically heated externally (generally with a forced air circulating oven).”
Therefore, 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 modify the heating system (Maziers 4) in the rotational molding process for producing a hollow article of Maziers/ENG with a forced air circulating oven, for the purpose of, as suggested and recognized as common practice by Chaudhary et al., externally heating the mold, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 2, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 1, wherein visible air bubbles are substantially removed from the hollow article in a shorter time than a control polymer composition without the RMDA (see Maziers [0071-0079]), wherein the shorter time is 5 to 50% less, preferably 10 to 40% less, than the time for the bubbles to be substantially removed from the control without the RMDA (see Maziers [0071] “The use of a processing aid according to the present invention results in cycle time reductions of at least 10%, preferably by at least 20%.”) – overlapping with the claimed range of 5 to 50% less, preferably 10 to 40% less. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, 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 portion of Maziers bubble removal time range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the peak internal air temperature (PIAT) of the mold is from 70 °C to 400 °C (see Maziers [0071, 0109]; [0109] “Peak Internal Air Temperature (PIAT) was 210 °C in all cases.”) – overlapping with the claimed range of from 70 °C to 400 °C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, 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 portion of Maziers peak internal air temperature (PIAT) range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the rotational molding process of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer comprises at least one of polyolefins (e.g., Maziers “polypropylene resin” [0058], see [0056 – 0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the rotational molding process of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer comprises a polyolefin (e.g., Maziers “polypropylene resin” [0058], see [0056 – 0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the rotational molding process of claim 8, wherein the polyolefin comprises at least one of polyethylene or polypropylene (e.g., Maziers “polypropylene resin” [0058], see [0056 – 0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition comprises 0.001 to 5 wt.%, based on the weight of the polymer composition, of the RMDA.
Since, Maziers, however, discloses the use of densification aids analogous to the claimed RMDA (e.g., Maziers discloses at [0018-0024, 0031] “rotomolded or slush molded articles prepared from a polyolefin composition essentially consisting of”, inter alia, “(b) from 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight of a densification aid” – overlapping with the claimed range of 0.001 to 5 wt.%, and ENG et al. discloses “co-agent(s)” analogous to the claimed RMDA, see [0038-0059], wherein “the final concentration of the co-active agent in the article of manufacture can be from 0.01 wt. % to 2 wt. %; from 0.01 wt. % to 1 wt. %; or from 0.05 wt. % to 0.50 wt. %, based on the weight of the article of manufacture. Those of ordinary skill in the art will be able to readily determine the amount and type of stabilizing additive(s) that should be added based on preparations as known and/or described in the literature, or through no more than routine experimentation.” ENG et al. at [0160], see also [0170-0174] – overlapping with the claimed range of 0.001 to 5 wt.%, (overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), the combination of the co-agent of ENG with the polymer composition of Maziers would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see claim 1 above) e.g., as polymer composition comprising a stabilizer composition having the co-active agent (densification aid), as suggested by ENG et al., and consequently the idea of combining them in the same weight percentages taught by ENG et al. flows logically from their (co-active agent/densification aid) having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 (I).
Therefore, 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 portion of either Maziers and/or ENG et al. RMDA (densification aid and/or co-agent) range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the RMDA is at least one alkoxylated aliphatic alcohol according to Formula (I):
R-(OCHR1CH2)y-OH (I), wherein R is C12-C6o hydrocarbyl; R1 is H or C1-C4 alkyl; and y is an integer from 1 to 100 (see ENG et al. [0040 – 0045], Formula III).
Regarding claim 15, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 13, wherein R is derived from a fatty alcohol having the same number of carbon atoms (e.g., see ENG et al. [0040 – 0045, 0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 13, wherein the RMDA is at least one of an ethoxylated and/or propoxylated C16/C18 alkyl alcohol (ENG et al. [0054]).
Regarding claim 27, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the polymer composition further comprises an organic phosphite or phosphonite (ENG et al. [0132] discloses the further use of “one or more further class of conventional co-stabilizers” that include, but are not limited to, inter alia, “phosphites, phosphonites”).
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Cahdhary so that the polymer composition further comprises an organic phosphite or phosphonite, as suggested by the prior art, as a co-stabilizer, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 52, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process, a hollow article (Maziers [0002]) prepared by the process of claim 1. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 28, 33, 36 – 40, 42 – 43, 46 – 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maziers (US 2013/0093118 A1), in view of ENG et al. (US 2016/0145427 A1), and Chaudhary et al. (US 2002/0077401 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Stadler (US 2004/0152807 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary teaches the process of claim 27, wherein the phosphite or phosphonite is at least one of: i) a compound according to any of Formulae (1) to (7)
Stadler teaches process for the production of polyolefin hollow articles comprises charging the polyolefin with a stabilizer combination comprising (a) at least one compound from the group of the organic phosphites or phosphonites, (b) one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of i.) hydroxylamine derivatives and ii.) amine oxide derivatives and (c) at least one compound from the group of the hindered amine stabilizers (Abstract), [0003] “The use of stabilizer combinations of phosphites or phosphonites with sterically hindered phenols and/or sterically hindered amines (HALS) in polyolefins is known [see, inter alia, R. Gchter, H. Muller, "Plastics Additives Handbook", Hanser Publishers, pages 40-71 (1990)].”;
[0013] “the combination of hydroxylamine derivatives, together with organic phosphites or phosphonites and hindered amine stabilizers results in excellent stabilization in the rotomolding process.”
See the formulae disclose by Stadler e.g., pages 2 – 7 and [0026 – 0087], with particular interest in formulae (1), which is equivalent to the claimed Formulae (1).
Therefore, 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 Stadler Formulae (1) for the phosphite or phosphonite in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 32, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises a hindered phenol.
ENG et al., however, at [0132] discloses that “in some embodiments the stabilizer compositions as heretofore described can include any one or more further class of conventional co-stabilizers that include, but are not limited to,” inter alia, “hindered phenols” (see also ENG et al. [0139, 0267]). Similarly, see Stadler [0003].
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to further comprise a hindered phenol, as a co-stabilizer, as suggested and taught by ENG et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 33, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 32, is at least one of octadecanol (IRGANOXTM 1076) (Stadler [0186]).
Regarding claim 36, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 32, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition comprises from 0.001 to 5 wt.% of the organic phosphite or phosphonite and/or the hindered phenol, based on the weight of the polymer composition.
ENG et al., however, at [0132] discloses that “in some embodiments the stabilizer compositions as heretofore described can include any one or more further class of conventional co-stabilizers that include, but are not limited to,” inter alia, “hindered phenols” (see also ENG et al. [0139, 0267]).
Similarly, see Stadler [0003]. Stadler [0087] “The organic phosphites or phosphonites of component (a) are preferably used in amounts of about 0.01% to about 10%, in particular from about 0.05% to about 5%, typically from about 0.1% to about 3% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin hollow article to be stabilized.”
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to further comprise a hindered phenol, as a co-stabilizer, as suggested and taught by ENG et al., and/or organic phosphite or phosphonite, as suggested by Stadler, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Therefore, 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 portion of either ENG et al. hindered phenol range and/or Stadler organic phosphite or phosphonite range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 37, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises 0.01 to 1 wt.% of at least one of zinc stearate, calcium stearate, zinc oxide
Stadler at [0159], however, discloses zinc stearate, calcium stearate, zinc oxide as basic co-stabilizers, and at [0164] discloses that “The co-stabilizers are added, for example, in concentrations of from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight, based on the overall weight of the polyolefin to be stabilized.” – overlapping with the claimed range of 0.01 to 1 wt.%, (overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness).
Therefore, 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 portion of Stadler co-stabilizer range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 38, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises 0.01 to 25 wt.%, based on the weight of the polymer composition, of at least one hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS), ultraviolet light absorber (UVA).
Maziers [0069 – 0072], however, discloses “Even more surprisingly, it has been found that the further addition of from 0.025% by weight to 0.500% by weight of one or more UV-stabilizers to the composition described hereabove comprising 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight of a processing aid even further improves the processability of the polyolefin in rotomolding.” – overlapping with the claimed range of 0.01 to 25 wt. %, based on the weight of the polymer composition.
ENG et al. at [0039] discloses that “the co-active agents refer to any additive or additive mixtures that acts synergistically with a UV absorber, optionally in combination with HALS, to effectively stabilize organic materials from the deleterious effects of UV light, heat and/or oxidation.”; [0175] “a stabilizing amount of a hindered amine light stabilizer compound (HALS)”, and [0310] “from 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. % of hindered amine light stabilizer”; ENG et al. at [0173] discloses the use of ultraviolet light absorber (UVA). – overlapping with the claimed range of 0.01 to 25 wt. %, based on the weight of the polymer composition.
Stadler [0003] discloses “The use of stabilizer combinations of phosphites or phosphonites with sterically hindered phenols and/or sterically hindered amines (HALS) in polyolefins is known [see, inter alia, R. Gchter, H. Muller, "Plastics Additives Handbook", Hanser Publishers, pages 40-71 (1990)].”). Stadler [0005, 0012, 0146], discloses the use of ultraviolet light absorbers (UVA).
Consequently, selecting the weight percentage for e.g., a HALS and/or UVA, based on the weight of the polymer from those weight percentages disclose by Maziers and/or ENG et al., to effectively stabilize organic materials from the deleterious effects of UV light, heat and/or oxidation, as taught by Maziers, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, 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 modify the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler by selecting the portion of e.g., ENG et al. HALS range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 39, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises at least one of α-tocopherol, β-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, δ-tocopherol, or esters thereof.
Stadler at [0126-0130], however, discloses “In addition to components (a), (b) and (c) the novel process may comprise further co-stabilizers (additives) such as, for example, the following:”, inter alia, “α-tocopherol, β-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, δ-tocopherol and mixtures thereof (Vitamin E).”, and the use of esters in the polymer composition e.g., see Stadler [0107] “polyesters”, see [0122, 0137 – 0142, 0150, 0152, 0158].
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to comprise at least one of α-tocopherol, β-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, δ-tocopherol, or esters thereof, as suggested and taught by ENG et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 40, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the polymer composition further comprises α-tocopherol (Vitamin E) (see the discussion of claim 39 above and Stadler [0130]).
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to comprise α-tocopherol (Vitamin E), as suggested and taught by ENG et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 42, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises at least one hydroxylamine or tertiary amine oxide (Stadler [0095]).
ENG et al. at [0132], however, discloses “in some embodiments the stabilizer compositions as heretofore described can include any one or more further class of conventional co-stabilizers that include, but are not limited to,” inter alia, “hydroxylamines”.
Stadler at [0095], however, discloses “amine oxide derivatives of component ii.) are saturated tertiary amine oxides”, see also [0106 – 0107].
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to comprise at least one hydroxylamine, as suggested and taught by ENG et al., and/or tertiary amine oxide, as suggested and taught by Stadler, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 43, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises at least one of N,N-di(hydrogenated tallow)hydroxylamine (IRGASTABTM FS-042).
Stadler at [0183 – 0209], however, discloses a Formulation B is additionally blended with a combination of 0.100 parts of the phosphite process stabilizer, inter alia, 0.050 parts of the hydroxylamine process stabilizer IRGASTABTM.
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler to comprise at least N,N-di(hydrogenated tallow)hydroxylamine (IRGASTABTM 042), as suggested and taught by Stadler, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 45, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the polymer composition further comprises a hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) (Maziers [0069]).
Regarding claim 46, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 45, wherein the hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) is at least one of ChimassorbTM 944, TinuvinTM 622 or TinuvinTM 783. (Maziers [0069] The one or more UV-stabilizers can be selected from any known UV-stabilizer known in the art. The preferred UV-stabilizers are hindered amine light stabilizers (HALS). Commercially available examples of HALS include ChimassorbTM 944, TinuvinTM 622 or TinuvinTM 783 from Ciba Specialty Chemicals.”
Regarding claim 47, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 45, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the polymer composition further comprises an ultraviolet light absorber (UVA).
ENG et al. at [0006], however, discloses “In particular, UV light absorbers such as benzotriazoles and benzophenones were initially used to stabilize polymeric materials, and to prevent the degradation of such materials from exposure to UV light. Later, it was discovered that hindered amine light stabilizers (“HALS”), which scavenge free radicals formed in the polymeric material when exposed to UV light, were more effective than UV light absorbers (“UVAs”). Accordingly, the use of HALS and UV light absorbers in combination are conventionally used to stabilize polymeric materials.” [0173] discloses “A stabilizer composition comprising: i) a stabilizing amount of an ultraviolet light absorber (UVA), see also [0131, 0133, 0283].
Therefore, 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 modify the polymer composition in the process of Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler so that the polymer composition further comprises an ultraviolet light absorber (UVA), as suggested by ENG et al., for the purpose of e.g., to prevent the degradation of such materials from exposure to UV light, as taught by ENG et al. [0006]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 48, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 47, wherein the ultraviolet light absorber is at least one of a 2-hydroxybenzophenone (ENG et al. [0149] “orthohydroxybenzophenone”1), a 2-(2'-hydroxyphenyl)benzotriazole (ENG et al. [0116]), a 2-(2'-hydroxyphenyl)-s-triazine (ENG et al. [0116]), or a benzoxazinone (ENG et al. [0116]). See also ENG et al. [0034] and Embodiment 6.
Regarding claim 50, Maziers/ENG/Chaudhary/Stadler teaches the process of claim 48, wherein the 2-(2'-hydroxyphenyl)-s-triazine is at least one of:
4,6-diphenyl-2-(4-hexyloxy-2-hydroxyphenyl)-s-triazine (TINUVINTM 1577) (e.g., ENG et al. [0090] and Tables 7A-7B), 4,6-bis-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-2-(2-hydroxy-4-octyloxyphenyl)-s-triazine (CYASORBTM 1164) (e.g., ENG et al. [0024] and [0326] Table of chemical sources).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weber et al. (US 2005/0017409 A1): directed to a rotomolding process with reduced cycle times, [0041] Preferred additive systems contain a hindered Amine Light Stabilizers (or HALS); a phosphite or phosphonite (especially a diphosphite as illustrated in the examples); and at least one third component selected from the group consisting of hindered phenols, hydroxylamines, amine oxides and lactones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 2-hydroxybenzophenone synonym “o-hydroxybenzophenone”; Retrieved from 2'-Hydroxybenzophenone | C13H10O2 | CID 8348 – PubChem at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2_-Hydroxybenzophenone
Prosecution Insights