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 § 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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the particles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8,11,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20100113726 (US ‘726).
As to Claim 1, US ‘726 discloses a composition comprising a solid organic peroxide at 10-90 wt % (para. 0005,0012, a polyol compound solvent including glycerol (para. 0016), thickeners (para. 0021) and nonionic surfactants i.e. dispersants (Table 2, Tergitol XD).
As to Claim 2, peroxide compounds include dibenzoyl peroxides (para. 0012).
As to Claim 3-4, see discussion of Claim 1.
As to Claim 5, the polyol is present from 10-90 wt % (para. 0006).
As to Claim 6, Tergitol XD has a HLB balance that ranges from 10-15 (Tergitol XD technical data sheet).
As to Claim 7, Tergitol XD is nonionic (Tergitol XD technical data sheet).
As to Claim 8, US ‘726 notes that additives such as surfactants are present 0.1 to 20 wt % (para. 0023).
As to Claim 10, US ‘726 notes that additives such as thickeners are present 0.1 to 20 wt % (para. 0023).
As to Claim 11, the prior art does not disclose the specific stability characteristics as required by the instant claim.
As to the difference, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently display the claimed characteristic due to the similarity of the prior art composition and that of the instant claims.
As to Claim 13, US ‘726 discloses a method of using the composition in polymerization reactions (para. 0009).
As to Claim 14, see discussion of Claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,8-11,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5162280 (US ‘280).
As to Claim 1, US ‘280 discloses a composition that is comprised of a solid peroxide (Col. 4, line 20) which can be present from to 10-45 wt % (Col. 3, lines 57-65), a polyol such as ethylene glycol (Col. 7, line 13) which has a melting point of less than 40 deg C, a dispersant compound which is present from 0.5 to 3.0 wt % (Col. 3, line 41 and Col. 4, lines 23-28), and cellulose ethers (Col. 4, lines 29-35) which the Examiner construes as equivalent to a thickener.
As to Claim 2, US ‘280 discloses several types of peroxides (Col. 4, lines 11-17).
As to Claim 3, see discussion of Claim 1.
As to Claim 5, the polyol content ranges from 10-30 wt % (Col. 3, lines 58-65).
As to Claim 8, see discussion of Claim 1.
As to Claim 9, the Examiner construes cellulose ethers as a type of polysaccharide.
As to Claim 10, see discussion of Claim 1 in regards to the cellulose ethers.
As to Claim 11, the prior art does not disclose the specific stability characteristics as required by the instant claim.
As to the difference, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently display the claimed characteristic due to the similarity of the prior art composition and that of the instant claims.
As to Claim 13, US ‘280 discloses application of the prior art composition as a initiator for polymerization reactions (Col. 3, lines 17-20).
As to Claim 14, see discussion of Claim 1 above. ‘
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108977081 (CN ‘081).
As to Claim 14, CN ‘081 discloses a composition which is a mixture of benzoyl peroxide which is solid at ambient temperature, glycerin (i.e. glycerol) which would have properties required, thickener and dispersion agent (Claim 1) which the Examiner construes as a dispersant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘726 further in view of US 4440885 (US ‘885) and US 5162280 (US ‘280).
As to Claim 9, US ‘726 discloses the use of thickeners as discussed above.
However, US ‘726 fails to specifically disclose the use of a polysaccharide.
As to the difference, US ‘280 discloses prior art peroxide compositions containing peroxides, nonionic surfactants and the use of cellulose derivatives as thickeners (Col. 2, lines 24-34) which the Examiner construes as a type of polysaccharide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polysaccharide thickener in the composition of US ‘726 as US ‘280 illustrates the utility in prior art compositions containing similar components to those of US ‘726.
As to Claim 12, US ‘726 discloses the compositions used have particle sizes that stay similar to or smaller than other aqueous peroxide compositions (para. 0008).
However, US ’726 fails to disclose the particle sizes has required by the claim.
As to the difference, US ‘885 discloses an aqueous peroxide composition which has particle sizes of 1.5 microns which falls within the claimed range. The Examiner notes that both references are directed to the problem of providing stable peroxide containing compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the US ‘726 reference has similar particle sizes to those of the claim as the references illustrate particle sizes that are utilized in said peroxide compositions.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘280 in view of US ‘726.
As to Claim 4, US ‘280 fails to disclose the use of glycerol or diglycerol compounds as required by the claim.
As to the difference, US ‘726, in the related art of solid dispersions of peroxide containing compounds, discloses the dispersion mediums as including glycols such as ethylene glycol and glycerol.
It would have been obvious to substitute the glycerol of US ‘726 for the ethylene glycol of US ‘280 as substitution of art recognized equivalents of similar dispersion mediums is within the level of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, 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 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 6/17/2026
/MARK KOPEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights