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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 20, 22 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/11/2025. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7, 13-18, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause et al (US 2013/0190432) in view of Narayanan (US 2011/0178215).
Claims 1-7, 13-14, 18, 21, 23: Krause discloses a composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer, a flame retardant composition and Licowax E [0178-0181, 0265]. The content of the flame retardant composition is 10-30 wt%, the balance can be polymer alone or polymer with additives [0137-0149]. The additives such as glass fiber are optional for the composition, which results in embodiments with thermoplastic polymer content overlaps the claimed range. The thermoplastic polymer can be PBT Ultradur B4500 having a melt flow rate of 19cm3/10min (250°C, 2.16kg) which results in a composition with a MFR overlapping the claimed range, the flame retardant composition comprises a mixture of aluminum phosphite, aluminum diethyl phosphinate and melamine cyanurate (table 4, 0012). The flame retardant composition comprises 60-84.9 wt% of aluminum diethyl phosphinate, 10-40 wt% of aluminum phosphite, and 5-30 wt% of melamine cyanurate (claim 5), it is 6-25.5wt% of aluminum diethyl phosphinate, 1-12wt% of aluminum phosphite, and 0.5-9wt% of melamine cyanurate based on the whole composition. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Krause does not teach an organometallic compatibilizer like claimed.
However, Narayanan discloses a similar composition and teaches the presence of an organometallic phosphoric compound can counteract the tendency of the phosphinic compound, such as aluminum diethyl phosphinate, to degrade the mechanical properties of the composition (abstract, 0043-0044). The organometallic phosphoric compound can be isopropyl, tri(dioctyl) phosphate titanate [0065]. The ratio of the phosphinic compounds to the organometallic phosphoric compounds is 10-200 [0050]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include isopropyl, tri(dioctyl) phosphate titanate to counteract the tendency of the phosphinic compound to degrade the mechanical properties of the composition.
Krause is silent with respect to the V-0 rating, CTI and elongation at break of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Krause and Narayanan have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise
Claims 15-16: Licowax E is an ester of montanic acid with multi-functional alcohols.
Claim 17: The exemplary composition in table 4 does not contain metal oxides, metal hydroxides, metal borates, or metal stagnates.
Claims 8, 20, 22, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause et al (US 2013/0190432) in view of Narayanan (US 2011/0178215) and further in view of Wilson et al (US2010/0298475) and evidenced by TOPDA (PTFE Micropowder TPD-505S).
Krause and Narayanan teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Krause and Narayanan do not teach PTFE.
However, Wilson discloses a flame resistance composition and teaches adding 0.1-5 parts by weight of PTFE to provide anti-dripping property (0076-0081). The PTFE having an average particle size of 0.08-20microns and a specific gravity of 1.2-2.3 g/cm3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include PTFE in the composition to provide anti-dripping property. The instant claim recites a density of from about 300g/L to about 450g/L when tested according to ASTM D4895. The claimed density is bulk density or apparent density which is different from a specific gravity. The bulk density is dependent on the particle size or the size of voids between particles. TOPDA shows a PTFE with a particle size of 4-6 um having a bulk density of 400kg/L. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the bulk density of Wilson’s PTFE would fall within or overlap the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Krause states there is no polymer degradation in the examples containing both DEPAL and PHOPAL, and Krause does realize the use of PHOPAL eliminates such degradation, applicants are respectfully requested to provide additional explanation and interpretation of Krause’s experimental data for the following questions: 1) if there is no polymer degradation, why MVR of I5-I7 and I8-I10 are different? 2) in table 3, why C6-C7 have the same MVR as I8-I10?
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the argument is not persuasive because the experimental data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claim. The inventive data (i.e. example 4) only contains 77.9 wt% of PBT as compared to the general recitation, and the inventive data only contains a specific PBT having MVR of 17 as compared to the claimed genus. The above statement also applies to other components in example 4. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763