DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Per preliminary amendment dated 12/27/24, claims 1-7 are currently pending in the application.
Applicant’s election of Group I invention (encompassing claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following:
In claim 1, the limitation “copolymer of vinyl acetate PVC&AC or copolymer of vinyl chloride and acrylic PVC&PVAC” may be amended for improving clarity and to simplify the claim language, by reciting “a copolymer of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate or a copolymer of vinyl chloride and an acrylic monomer”. Additionally based on the recitation “a vinyl chloride polymer (PVC)” in lines 1-2, the recitation “total weight of the PVC polymer” may be amended for consistency within the claim, and to avoid antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1 should be amended to recited “A formulation”. Additionally, claim 1 recites “photoinitiator in the wavelength range from”. Although the recitation does not rise to the level of indefiniteness under 112(b) in view of the disclosure (according to which the plastisol composition is exposed to UV light in the range of 400 -365 nm to achieve photocrosslinking, pages 12-13), the recitation in claim 1 may be amended to recite “a photoinitiator that is active to radiation of wavelength ranging from”.
Claim 1 recites the terms “plasticizer” (lines 2, 4) and “plasticisers” (line 7). Claims 2 and 3 recite the term “plasticizer”. Noting that the spelling “plasticizer” conforms to American English, the claims (and specification, if required) should be amended to adopt one consistent spelling.
In claim 3, the recitation “parts hundred resin” should be amended to “parts per hundred resin”. Additionally, the recitation “100 parts PVC” should be amended to to be consistent with the proposed language below for amending claim 1.
Appropriate corrections and/or clarifications are required.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
(1) “vinyl chloride polymer (PVC)”; (2) “total weight of PVC polymer” (3) “native form of PVC in resin form”; (4) “at least one plasticizer”; (5) “plasticizer mixture”; (6) “comprising a phosphorus”, (7) “the total weight ratio of the plasticizers mixture”, and (8) photoinitiator in the wavelength range from, 365nm to 400 nm, preferably 395 nm being a 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide.
Claim 1 is indefinite. Regarding the cited limitations (1)-(3), noting that the recitation “vinyl chloride polymer (PVC)” encompasses copolymers although the term “PVC” is reserved for poly(vinyl chloride), i.e., a homopolymer, it is also unclear as to what “a native form of PVC in resin form” encompasses.
The cited limitations (3), (4) and (6) are of confusing scope. One the one hand, “at least one plasticizer” implies that one plasticizer may be present in the formulation, but limitations (4) and (5) suggest that a mixture of plasticizers are present in the formulation.
Limitation (5) is of confusing scope because it is unclear if the plasticizer mixture comprises phosphorus, as in element phosphorus, or a phosphorus-containing plasticizer.
Limitation (7) lacks clarity. 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 1 recites the broad recitation “365 nm to 400 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably up to 395 nm”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In addition to the ambiguity on whether the term “preferably” applies only to “395 nm” or to both - “395” and “2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide”, and noting that the recitation “preferably up to 395 nm” encompasses a range even broader than 365 nm to 400 nm, the claim is 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 claim.
Claims 2 and 3 are subsumed by this rejection because they depend on rejected base claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the ratio of the total weight of the plasticiser mixture to the total weight of PVC polymer is from about 0.5:1 to about 1:1, the photoinitiator from 5 to 20 phr (parts hundred resin) to 100 phr PVC”. The claim is indefinite due to the recited ranges.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 which recites “the total weight ratio of the plasticizers mixture being from 35.14 wt% to 38.24 wt.% of the total formulation” and “the total weight of PVC polymer being from 54.05 wt% to 58.82 wt% of the total formulation”. That is, based on the ranges recited for corresponding components in claim 1, it is unclear how the total weight of plasticizer mixture, relative to the total weight of PVC polymer, can extend to the endpoints of “0.5:1” and “about 1:1”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, the objections set forth in this Office action and/or to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The following claims 1 and 2 drafted by the examiner are presented to applicant for consideration:
Examiner interprets “a native form of PVC in resin form” in claim 1 to mean poly(vinyl chloride), i.e., homopolymer. Additionally, based on the support in the disclosure for vinyl chloride polymers, for 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide as the sole species of photoinitiator, and for the method of photocrosslinking (PGPUB-[0038]-[0040], [0047], [0051]-[0055], Examples), claims 1 and 2 are interpreted as follows:
(1) A formulation for obtaining a photocrosslinked plastisol, comprising: a vinyl chloride polymer, a plasticizer mixture, and a photoinitiator that is active to radiation of wavelength ranging from 365nm to 400 nm;
wherein said vinyl chloride polymer is poly(vinyl chloride), a copolymer of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate, or a copolymer of vinyl chloride and an acrylic monomer;
wherein said plasticizer mixture comprises a phosphorus-containing plasticizer and diisononyl phthalate;
wherein said photoinitiator is 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide;
wherein the amount of plasticizer mixture is from 35.14 wt.% to 38.24 wt.%, the amount of vinyl chloride polymer is from 54.05 wt.% to 58.82 wt.%, and the amount of the photoinitiator is from 2.94 wt.% to 10.81 wt.%, said wt.% being based on the total weight of the formulation.
(2) The formulation according to claim 1, wherein the phosphorus-containing plasticizer is in an amount of 8.11 wt.% to 8.82 wt.%, and diisononyl phthalate is in an amount of 27.03 wt.% to 29.41 wt.%, based on the total weight of the formulation.
Conclusion
The following prior art references are made of record:
Pierluigi et al. (FR2574684 A1, machine translation), Baba (JP 2010-059358 A, machine translation) and Hayashi et al. (US 4,929,171 A).
Pierluigi teaches a method for manufacturing a UV-crosslinked polyvinyl chloride wear layer from a composition containing polyvinyl chloride, a crosslinker and a photosensitizer (Ab., lines 38-40, ref. claim 1). Disclosed compositions may include known photosensitizers, and plasticizers, such as phthalate-based plasticizers (lines 97-110). Pierluigi, while teaching diisononyl phthalate, is silent on a composition comprising a mixture of diisononyl phthalate and a phosphorus-containing plasticizer, and claimed photoinitiator within the claimed ranges.
Baba teaches a plastisol composition comprising: (a) 100 parts by mass of vinyl chloride resin fine particles or acrylic polymer fine particles, (b) 1-50 parts by mass of block polyisocyanate or block polyurethane, (c) 0.01-10 parts by mass of polyamine compound, (d) 1 to 50 parts by mass of the compound and acrylate / or methacrylate compound, (e) 0.1 to 10 parts by mass of the energy ray sensitive radical polymerization initiator, (f) 50 to 500 parts by mass of the plasticizer, and (g) 50 to 800 of the filler (Title, Overview, ref. claims, [0014], [0074], [0075]). However, the ranges for the amount of vinyl chloride resin, plasticizer and photoinitiator as claimed do not fall within the scope of Baba, based on the ranges prescribed for all the essential components in Baba’s composition.
Hayashi teaches a composite polyvinylchloride plastisol composition comprising a polyvinylchloride resin powder (100 parts), an acrylic resin powder (5-60 parts), an acrylic monomer and/or oligomer (5-60 parts), a photoinitiator (1-3 parts), and a plasticizer, a stabilizer, and a heat setting initiator as needed. In addition of the teaching on a photoinitiator amount outside of the claimed range, Hayashi is silent on the claimed plasticizer mixture and the claimed photoinitiator within claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert Jones can be reached at (571)-270-7733. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights