DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 21, 24-27 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 6-7, 11, 17, 19-20, 22-23 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Elections
The Election of Species Requirement in the previous Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 has been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 01/28/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 24-25), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/28/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/625,607, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The parent Application No. 18/625,607 fails to provide adequate support for the subject matter of claims 3-4, 12-13, 21, 27. In particular, the parent Application No. 18/625,607 fails to provide adequate support for the individual amount of polymeric plasticizer when both the thermoplastic elastomer and the polymeric plasticizer is present. Therefore:
• Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 14-16, 18, 26 have an effective filing date of 04/03/2024.
• Claims 3-4, 12-13, 21, 27 have an effective filing date of 10/21/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
• claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 (TOMKA ET AL)
in view of YAGI (US 5,759,686),
and in view of HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2009/0062454),
and in view of DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER,
and in view of BELCHER, JR ET AL (US 2012/0128967),
and in view of EUSTACE ET AL (US 6,689,840),
U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 claims a composite article comprising: a core; and a capstock; wherein the capstock comprises PVC, ASA, SAN, and a polymeric plasticizer which is a ketone ethylene ester terpolymer (KEE) in amounts which at least partially overlap the amounts of PVC, AS, SAN, and KEE recited in present application claims 1, 10, 18, 21, 26-27. Features not explicitly claimed are known in or are obvious from the prior art.
YAGI ‘686 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate 10-200 parts of a copolyester resin (e.g., a polyester-ether block copolyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate hard segments and poly(alkylene oxide) glycol soft segments (corresponding to the recited “polyether” soft segments of claim 4) (e.g., HYTREL copolymers) per 100 parts PVC in PVC-based compositions in order to improve impact resistance and processibility, and reduce hardness variations on temperature. (line 10-15, line 1; line 33-40, col. 3; line 7-38, col. 4; line 35-55, col. 6; etc.)
HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate compatible thermoplastic polyetheresters (e.g., HYTREL, etc.) in PVC-based compositions in order to provide improved low-temperature properties and improved resistance to brittleness. (paragraph 0034-0036, etc.).
DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER provides evidence that it is well known in the art that HYTREL polymers are thermoplastic polyester elastomers, comprising polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) hard segments and polyether-based soft segments, wherein HYTREL thermoplastic elastomers can be used to enhance properties when mixed with other polymers (e.g., PVC, etc.) (pages 2-3, etc.).
BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize composite materials comprising:
• a core layer (110);
• a cap layer (120), wherein the cap layer comprises:
• one or more weather-resistant polymeric materials (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyacrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); etc. or blends or alloys thereof -- for example, but not limited to blends comprising 25-75 wt% PVC with 75-25 wt% of one or more styrene-type resin and/or acrylic-type resin; etc.);
• 3-10 wt% of a plasticizer (e.g., EVLALOY brand resins; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer” of claims 21, 26-27).
as a decking material and other outdoor structural products. (entire document, e.g., Figure 1, etc.; paragraph 0005, 0010-0014, etc.)
EUSTACE ET AL ‘840 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize blends comprises:
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-80 wt% or 25-50 wt%) of a halogen-containing polymer (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); etc.);
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-90 wt% or 40-70 wt%) an acrylic material (e.g., acrylic-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN); etc.)
• additives (e.g., pigments; fillers; impact modifiers; lubricants; UV stabilizers; thermal stabilizers; viscosity modifiers; etc.);
as capstock materials for substrates (e.g., for board-type products, etc.). (line 17-33, col. 2; line 7-14, 28-45, col. 3; line 6-32, col. 4; line 45-57, col. 5; line 24-29, col. 6; etc.)
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-10, 18, 21, 26-27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate effective amounts of known compatible thermoplastic polyester-type elastomers (e.g., commercially available block copolymers with polyester hard segments and polyether soft segments, such as HYTREL (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 and DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER) in the capstock claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 in order to provide further enhancements in impact resistance, low-temperature performance, brittleness resistance and/or processing characteristics (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454).
Regarding claims 8-9, since: YAGI ‘686 suggests the use of performance-enhancing thermoplastic polyester-ether block copolymers (which are elastomers as evidenced by HYTREL) in typical amounts of 10-200 parts relative to 100 parts PVC, a capstock as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 further incorporating performance-enhancing thermoplastic polyester elastomers in amounts consistent with YAGI ‘686 can contain a thermoplastic elastomer content which reads on the recited 1-60 wt% (claim 8) or 10-25 wt% (claim 9). For example, a capstock composition containing: 40 parts PVC; 25 parts ASA; 18 parts SAN; 20 parts KEE; and 16 parts thermoplastic elastomer (e.g., 40 parts thermoplastic polyester elastomer per 100 parts PVC, consistent with YAGI ‘686) would contain about 34 wt% PVC, about 21 wt% ASA, about 15 wt% SAN, about 17 wt% KEE, and about 13 wt% thermoplastic elastomer.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known abrasion-resisting and/or hardness-improving additives (e.g., “hard” inorganic fillers, stiffening polymeric additives, etc.) in the capstock as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to obtain cap layers with excellent abrasion resistance (as represented by low weight loss values of 0.2 g or less) for specific applications.
Regarding claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known thermal stabilizing agents and/or melt-viscosity modifiers in the capstock as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to maintain flowability during extended heat exposure during melt blending and/or melt-extrusion operations (as represented by a torque increase of 15% or less) for specific molding applications.
Further regarding claims 12-13, the Examiner cautions that if Applicant chooses to argue that the physical properties recited in claims 12-13 cannot be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art using known improvement and/or modification techniques or methods (e.g., as mentioned above) using routine experimentation, this may raise significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement, and that Applicant’s arguments and/or assertions may be used as admissions or supporting evidence with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement.
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known functional additives conventionally used in PVC-based compositions (as suggested in EUSTACE ET AL ‘840) in the capstock claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 in order to provide desired performance properties (e.g., visual appearance; flame resistance, antistatic properties, coefficient of friction, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, the capstock claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 does not require thermoplastic polyurethane.
Regarding claim 16, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the composite board claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,448,507 in conventional composite applications (e.g., decking materials, as suggested in BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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) 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• BELCHER, JR ET AL (US 2012/0128967),
in view of EUSTACE ET AL (US 6,689,840),
and in view of TURCZYK (US 4,168,285),
and in view of YAGI (US 5,759,686),
and in view of HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2009/0062454),
and in view of DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER.
BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 discloses composite materials comprising:
• a core layer (110);
• a cap layer (120), wherein the cap layer comprises:
• one or more weather-resistant polymeric materials (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyacrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); etc. or blends or alloys thereof -- for example, but not limited to blends comprising 25-75 wt% PVC with 75-25 wt% of one or more styrene-type resin and/or acrylic-type resin; etc.);
• 3-10 wt% of a plasticizer (e.g., EVLALOY brand resins; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer” of claims 21, 26-27).
wherein the composite material is useful as a decking material and other outdoor structural products. (entire document, e.g., Figure 1, etc.; paragraph 0005, 0010-0014, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically mention cap layer polymeric materials containing styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN).
EUSTACE ET AL ‘840 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize blends comprises:
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-80 wt% or 25-50 wt%) of a halogen-containing polymer (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC); etc.);
• 0.1-99.8 wt% (preferably 10-90 wt% or 40-70 wt%) an acrylic material (e.g., acrylic-styrene-acrylonitrile (ASA); styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN); etc.)
• additives (e.g., pigments; fillers; impact modifiers; lubricants; UV stabilizers; thermal stabilizers; viscosity modifiers; etc.);
as capstock materials for substrates (e.g., for board-type products, etc.). (line 17-33, col. 2; line 7-14, 28-45, col. 3; line 6-32, col. 4; line 45-57, col. 5; line 24-29, col. 6; etc.)
TURCZYK ‘285 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate impact modifiers containing 15-90 wt% styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) in polyvinyl chloride-based compositions, wherein the impact modifier is used in typical amounts of 5-95 wt% in order to improve impact resistance and heat-distortion temperature performance, and also as a processing aid. (line 10-15, 29-40, 52-68, col. 1; line 34-67, col. 2; etc.)
YAGI ‘686 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate 10-200 parts of a copolyester resin (e.g., a polyester-ether block copolyester comprising polybutylene terephthalate hard segments and poly(alkylene oxide) glycol soft segments (corresponding to the recited “polyether” soft segments of claim 4) (e.g., HYTREL copolymers) per 100 parts PVC in PVC-based compositions in order to improve impact resistance and processibility, and reduce hardness variations on temperature. (line 10-15, line 1; line 33-40, col. 3; line 7-38, col. 4; line 35-55, col. 6; etc.)
HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate compatible thermoplastic polyetheresters (e.g., HYTREL, etc.) in PVC-based compositions in order to provide improved low-temperature properties and improved resistance to brittleness. (paragraph 0034-0036, etc.).
DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER provides evidence that it is well known in the art that HYTREL polymers are thermoplastic polyester elastomers, comprising polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) hard segments and polyether-based soft segments, wherein HYTREL thermoplastic elastomers can be used to enhance properties when mixed with other polymers (e.g., PVC, etc.) (pages 2-3, etc.).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 14-16, 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known PVC / ASA blends as disclosed in EUSTACE ET AL ‘840 which do not require thermoplastic urethane to form the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967.
Further regarding claims 1, 10, 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of a SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURCZYK ‘285 in a PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve impact resistance and heat-distortion temperature performance, and optionally to serve as a processing aid.
Further regarding claims 1, 10, 21, since: TURCZYK ‘285 suggests the use of SAN-containing impact modifiers containing 15-90 wt% SAN in polyvinyl chloride-based compositions in typical amounts of 5-95 wt%; a PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 containing impact modifiers in accordance with TURSZYK ‘285 can contain an SAN content which reads the 1-60 wt% SAN recited in claim 8 (and the 10-30 wt% SAN recited in claim 12 and the 10-20 wt% SAN recited in claim 21). For example, a 50 part/40 part PVC/ASA blend cap layer for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing 20 parts of a known SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURSZYK ’28 and 30 parts thermoplastic polyester elastomer (TPE) (i.e., 60 parts TPE per 100 parts PVC, consistent with YAGI ‘686) can have a PVC content of about 36 wt%, an ASA content of about 29 wt%, a TPE content of about 21 wt% and a SAN content of about 14 wt%.
Further regarding claims 1-5, 8-9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known compatible thermoplastic polyester-type elastomers (e.g., commercially available block copolymers with polyester hard segments and polyether soft segments, such as HYTREL (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454 and DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER) in the PVC-based cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to provide further enhancements in impact resistance, low-temperature performance, brittleness resistance and/or processing characteristics (as suggested by YAGI ‘686 and HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL ‘454).
Further regarding claims 8-9, since: YAGI ‘686 suggests the use of performance-enhancing thermoplastic polyester-ether block copolymers (which are elastomers as evidenced by DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER) in typical amounts of 10-200 parts relative to 100 parts PVC, a PVC-based cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further incorporating such performance-enhancing thermoplastic elastomers in amounts consistent with YAGI ‘686 can contain a thermoplastic elastomer content which reads on the recited 1-60 wt% (claim 8) or the 10-25 wt% (claim 9). For example, a 50 part/40 part PVC/ASA blend cap layer for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing 20 parts of a known SAN-containing impact modifier as disclosed in TURSZYK ’28 and 30 parts thermoplastic polyester elastomer (TPE) (i.e., 60 parts TPE per 100 parts PVC, consistent with YAGI ‘686) can have a PVC content of about 36 wt%, an ASA content of about 29 wt%, a TPE content of about 21 wt% and a SAN content of about 14 wt%.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known abrasion-resisting and/or hardness-improving additives (e.g., “hard” inorganic fillers, stiffening polymeric additives, etc.) in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to obtain cap layers with excellent abrasion-resistance (as represented by low weight loss values of 0.2 g or less) for specific applications.
Regarding claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of thermal stabilizing agents and/or melt-viscosity modifiers in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 further containing performance-enhancing amounts of SAN and thermoplastic elastomer in order to maintain flowability during exposure to heat during melt blending and/or melt-extrusion operations (as represented by a torque increase of 15% or less) for specific molding applications.
Further regarding claims 12-13, the Examiner cautions that if Applicant chooses to argue that the physical properties recited in claims 12-13 cannot be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art using known improvement and/or modification techniques or methods (e.g., as mentioned above) using routine experimentation, this may raise significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement, and that Applicant’s arguments and/or assertions may be used as admissions or supporting evidence with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement.
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known additional additives (as suggested in EUSTACE ET AL ‘840) in the PVC / ASA blend cap layer (120) for the composites of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve or modify various performance properties (e.g., coloration, heat-resistance, durability, weatherability, etc.).
Regarding claim 21, 26-27 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts (e.g., 3-10 wt%) of a known, commercially available plasticizer (e.g., ELVALOY brand resins) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer”) as a plasticizer in the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve elasticity, impact resistance and/or moisture resistance.
Claim(s) 18, 21, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
BELCHER, JR ET AL (US 2012/0128967), in view of EUSTACE ET AL (US 6,689,840), and in view of TURCZYK (US 4,168,285), and in view of YAGI (US 5,759,686), and in view of HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2009/0062454), and in view of DISTRUPOL - HYTREL THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER,
as applied to claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 21, 26-27 above,
and further in view of DAVE ET AL (US 2011/0129628) or HACKER ET AL (US 2011/0275747).
DAVE ET AL ‘628 and HACKER ET AL ‘747 both provide evidence that ELVALOY brand resins are known to be ketone-ethylene-ester (KEE) terpolymers. The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize ELVALOY brand resins as polymeric plasticizers in typical amounts of up to 99.5 wt% (preferably up to 20 wt% or up to 10 wt%) in halogen-containing polymer compositions (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC), etc.) suitable for use in a wide variety of applications (e.g., agricultural foils, roofing foils, etc.). The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate additives (e.g., stabilizers; antioxidants; UV absorbers; light stabilizers; pigments; fillers; lubricants; other plasticizers; impact modifiers; processing aids; etc.) into said halogen-containing polymer (e.g., PVC, etc.) compositions. (DAVE ET AL ‘628, paragraph 0125-0126, 0138-0141, 0150-0151, etc.) (see corresponding portions of HACKER ET AL ‘747)
Regarding claims 18, 21, 26-27 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts (e.g., 3-10 wt%) of a known, commercially available ketone-ethylene-ester (KEE) terpolymer (e.g., ELVALOY brand resins, as evidenced by DAVE ET AL ‘628 or HACKER ET AL ‘747) (corresponding to the recited “polymeric plasticizer”) as a plasticizer in the cap layer (120) of BELCHER, JR ET AL ‘967 in order to improve elasticity, impact resistance and moisture resistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 0212449 discloses PVC-based compositions containing segmented copolyesters.
HARDOUIN-DUPARC ET AL (US 2011/0241254) discloses PVC-based compositions containing thermoplastic polyetheresters (e.g., HYTREL).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 21, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787