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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 02/18/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-19, and 21-24 are currently pending, of which claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 19, and 21-24 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/090095 A1) in view of Katsoulis (US 2009/0246499 A1) and Wang (WO 2019/186400 A1, see US 2021/0009886 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/090095 A1) in view of Katsoulis (US 2009/0246499 A1), and Wang (WO 2019/186400 A1, see US 2021/0009886 A1), and further in view of Geprags (US 7,105,589 B2) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “luminium monohydrate”. Applicant is suggested to revise “luminium monohydrate” as “aluminium monohydrate” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 5 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 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “the non-halogenated flame retardant filler is aluminium based hydroxide”. However, claim 1 recites “a non-halogenated flame retardant filler selected from melamine polyphosphate, metal phosphinate, aluminium monohydrate, and blends and mixtures thereof”. While aluminium monohydrate is an aluminum based hydroxide, not all aluminum based hydroxides are necessarily aluminium monohydrate. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation “aluminium based hydroxide” in claim 5 means aluminium monohydrate or not. For the purpose of the compact prosecution, the limitation “aluminium based hydroxide” in claim 5 is interpreted as “aluminium monohydrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1-3, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1, hereinafter Shao).
Regarding claim 1, Shao teaches ([0009], claim 1) a thermoplastic composite for insulating comprising:
a polymer, wherein the polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyamide, polyester such as polybutylene terephthalate, and blends thereof (claim 2, [0026]), which reads on the claimed thermoplastic polymer matrix;
a filler, wherein the filler is selected from the group consisting of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, clay, glass fiber, and blends thereof (claim 5, [0009]);
one or more additives, wherein the one or more additives can be a fire retardant (claim 7), and the fire retardant can be metal phosphinate ([0012], claim 8).
Shao teaches that the filler can be nano-size ([0009], claim 1). Thus, the clay as a filler in Shao can be a nanoclay.
Shao also teaches that the filler can constitute from greater than zero to about 70 weight percent based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0011]), the thermoplastic composites can include up to about 70 % by weight of filler(s) and/or additive(s) ([0031]).
Thus, the polymer can be in an amount of about 30 wt.% to less than 100 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite of Shao, which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 30 to 70 percent by weight”.
Each of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, clay such as nanoclay, and glass fiber as the filler can be in an amount of more than 0 wt.% to about 23 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite of Shao, which overlap with the claimed ranges of “from 0.1 to 2 percent by weight”, “from 5 to 15% by weight”, and “from 5 to 40 percent by weight”.
Shao also teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034]), and less than about 70 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0031]).
Thus, the fire retardant such as metal phosphinate as the additive can be in an amount of about 2.0 wt.% or greater to less than about 70 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite of Shao, which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 10 to 40 percent by weight”.
Shao further teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used in insulating an electrical component for electrical insulation (abstract), and the filler(s) is used to render to the polymer an increase in dielectric strength, thereby imparting improved dielectric property to the thermoplastic composite (abstract, [0010]).
Shao does not teach that the thermoplastic composite has a dielectric strength from 15 to 25 kV/mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed dielectric strength would flow naturally from the teaching of Shao, because the teaching of Shao provides substantially the same thermoplastic composite insulator comprising the same thermoplastic polymer matrix with the same amount, the same non-halogenated flame retardant filler such as metal phosphinate with the same amount, the same polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane with the same amount, the same glass fibers with the same amount, and the same nanoclay with the same amount as claimed, and also because the thermoplastic composite of Shao has good dielectric property and is used for electrically insulating an electrical component as recognized by Shao. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Shao teaches that the polymer can be polybutylene terephthalate (claim 2, [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Shao teaches that the polymer can be polyamide (claim 2, [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Shao teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used for electrically insulating an electrical component (abstract), and the filler(s) is used to render to the polymer an increase in dielectric strength, arc resistance, and tracking resistance ([0030]), and the fire retardant is added to improve the tracking index of the thermoplastic composite ([0033]).
Shao does not teach that the thermoplastic composite has arc resistance from 120 to 180 seconds, comparative tracking index from 400 to 600 volts, and flame retardant rating from V2 to V0.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed properties of arc resistance from 120 to 180 seconds, comparative tracking index from 400 to 600 volts, and flame retardant rating from V2 to V0, would flow naturally from the teaching of Shao, because the teaching of Shao provides substantially the same thermoplastic composite insulator comprising the same thermoplastic polymer matrix with the same amount, the same non-halogenated flame retardant filler such as metal phosphinate with the same amount, the same polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane with the same amount, the same glass fibers with the same amount, and the same nanoclay with the same amount as claimed, and also because the thermoplastic composite of Shao is used for electrically insulating an electrical component, and has increased arc resistance and tracking index by adding the filler(s) and the fire retardant as recognized by Shao. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Shao teaches that the thermoplastic composite can be applied to the surface of the electrical component as a film ([0038]).
Regarding claim 24, Shao teaches that the thermoplastic composite can have a broad range of thicknesses, and the thermoplastic composite can have a thickness in a range of from about 4000 to about 6000 microns ([0039]), equaling to 4 to 6 mm, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 0.5 mm to a few inches”.
2. Claims 5, 6, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1, hereinafter Shao) as applied to claims 1-3, 21, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Zhou (WO 2019/164530 A1, see US 2021/0079591 A1, hereinafter Zhou).
The disclosure of Shao is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 22, the instant invention discloses that aluminum monohydrate is also known as Boehmite (instant [0038]).
Shao teaches that the polymer can be polybutylene terephthalate (claim 2, [0026]). Shao teaches that the one or more additives can be a fire retardant (claim 7), and the fire retardant can be a non-halogenated material such as aluminum trihydrate (i.e. aluminum trihydroxide), and magnesium hydroxide ([0012], claims 8-9).
Shao also teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034]), and less than about 70 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0031]).
Shao does not teach that the non-halogenated flame retardant filler is aluminium monohydrate.
However, Zhou teaches a fire retarding barrier layer comprising a polymeric binder and filler particles with flame retardancy properties (claim 1, [0008]), wherein the filler particles with flame retardancy properties can be a mineral compound, and examples of the mineral compound can be aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, and boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) ([0038]).
Zhou also teaches that the polymeric binder can be a polyester ([0077], claim 7), and the polymeric binder can be present in an amount ranging from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% based on total weigh of the fire retarding barrier layer ([0076]). Thus, the filler particles with flame retardancy properties can be in an amount of from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% based on total weigh of the fire retarding barrier layer of Zhou, which overlaps with the range of “about 2.0 wt.% or greater to less than about 70 wt.%” of the fire retardant as the additive in Shao.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) as taught by Zhou as the fire retardant which is a non-halogenated material in Shao, in order to improve the flame retardancy of the thermoplastic composite with a reasonable expectation of success, because the boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) is filler particles with flame retardancy properties as recognized by Zhou. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1, hereinafter Shao) as applied to claims 1-3, 21, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Geprags (US 2005/0250882 A1, hereinafter Geprags).
The disclosure of Shao is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "added to achieve a black color while maintaining arc/ tracking resistance" is an intended result and does not add structural limitation, thus the intended result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Shao does not teach that a non-carbon colorant is added.
However, Geprags teaches a thermoplastic molding composition comprising at least one thermoplastic polyester, a flame retardant, and at least one nigrosine ([0001]-[0009]). Geprags also teaches that nigrosine is a black dye, has various embodiments such as water soluble, fat-soluble, petroleum-soluble, and can be used in dyeing of plastics ([0136]). The nigrosine as taught by Geprags is a non-carbon colorant with a black color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermoplastic composite as taught by Shao further comprising a non-carbon black colorant such as nigrosine as taught by Geprags, in order to dye the thermoplastics with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1, hereinafter Shao) as applied to claims 1-3, 21, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Zhou (WO 2019/164530 A1, see US 2021/0079591 A1, hereinafter Zhou), and Suzuki (WO 2019/065870 A1, see US 2020/0266005 A1, hereinafter Suzuki).
The disclosure of Shao is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, the instant invention discloses that aluminum monohydrate is also known as Boehmite (instant [0038]).
Shao teaches that the one or more additives can be a fire retardant (claim 7), and the fire retardant can be a non-halogenated material such as aluminum trihydrate (i.e. aluminum trihydroxide), and magnesium hydroxide ([0012], claims 8-9).
Shao also teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034]), and less than about 70 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0031]).
Shao does not teach that the non-halogenated flame retardant filler comprises aluminum monohydrate.
However, Zhou teaches a fire retarding barrier layer comprising a polymeric binder and filler particles with flame retardancy properties (claim 1, [0008]), wherein the filler particles with flame retardancy properties can be a mineral compound, and examples of the mineral compound can be aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, and boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) ([0038]).
Zhou also teaches that the polymeric binder can be a polyester ([0077], claim 7), and the polymeric binder can be present in an amount ranging from about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% based on total weigh of the fire retarding barrier layer ([0076]). Thus, the filler particles with flame retardancy properties can be in an amount of from about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% based on total weigh of the fire retarding barrier layer of Zhou, which overlaps with the range of “about 2.0 wt.% or greater to less than about 70 wt.%” of the fire retardant as the additive in Shao.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) as taught by Zhou as the fire retardant that is a non-halogenated material in Shao, in order to improve the flame retardancy of the thermoplastic composite with a reasonable expectation of success, because the boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) is filler particles with flame retardancy properties as recognized by Zhou.
Shao also teaches that the filler is added to improve the dielectric property of the thermoplastic composite ([0009]), and the filler can be clay (claim 5, [0009]). Shao further teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used for electrically insulating an electrical component (abstract).
Shao does not teach the filler comprises mica.
However, Suzuki teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin and a filler ([0123]), wherein the thermoplastic resin can be polybutylene terephthalate ([0123]), the filler is preferably electrically insulating particles and/or fibers, and the filler with electrically insulating properties can be a mineral material such as mica, and clay ([0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide mica as taught by Suzuki as the filler which improves the dielectric property in Shao, in order to improve the electrical insulation property of the thermoplastic composite with a reasonable expectation of success, because mica is an electrically insulating filler as recognized by Suzuki. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761