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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-19, and 21-25 are currently pending, of which claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 19, and 21-25 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 5, 6, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1), and further in view of Zhou (WO 2019/164530 A1, see US 2021/0079591 A1) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1), and further in view of Geprags (US 2005/0250882 A1) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2018/0033519 A1), and further in view of Zhou (WO 2019/164530 A1, see US 2021/0079591 A1), and Suzuki (WO 2019/065870 A1, see US 2020/0266005 A1) is maintained 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.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof; should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, and 23-25 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 insulator comprising:
a polymer, wherein the polymer can be 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 can be 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, which reads on the claimed functional filler.
Shao also teaches that the filler constitutes from greater than zero to about 70 weight percent based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0011], claim 6). Shao further teaches that the thermoplastic composite 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]); each of the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034], claim 10), 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 also teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used for insulating and encapsulating an electrical component ([0008]). Shen further teaches the filler(s) is used to render to the polymer an increase in dielectric strength and arc resistance, 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, and has an efficacy to quench a high-energy arc generated during a short-circuit event for residential voltage applications with an insulation capability from 12 to 240V with a 15-30A rating.
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 and the claimed property of an efficacy to quench a high-energy arc generated during a short-circuit event for residential voltage applications with an insulation capability from 12 to 240V with a 15-30A rating, 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 insulating and encapsulating an electrical component, and has good dielectric strength and arc resistance 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 claims 21 and 25, Shao teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used for electrically insulating an electrical component (abstract); the filler(s) is used to render to the polymer an increase in dielectric strength, arc resistance, and tracking resistance ([0030]); the fire retardant is added to improve the tracking index of the thermoplastic composite, and to decrease the flammability 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 insulating and encapsulating an electrical component, and has increased arc resistance and tracking index, and decreased flammability 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, and 23-25 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), wherein the fire retardant comprises a non-halogenated material (claim 9), and the examples of the non-halogenated fire retardant include aluminum trihydrate (i.e. aluminum trihydroxide), and magnesium hydroxide ([0012], claim 8).
Shao also teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); each of the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034], claim 10), 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]). The boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) in Zhou reads on the claimed aluminium monohydrate.
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, and 23-25 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, and 23-25 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), wherein the fire retardant comprises a non-halogenated material (claim 9), and the examples of the non-halogenated fire retardant include aluminum trihydrate (i.e. aluminum trihydroxide), and magnesium hydroxide ([0012], claim 8).
Shao also teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); each of the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034], claim 10), 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]). The boehmite (i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide) in Zhou reads on the claimed aluminum monohydrate.
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 include 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 filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no mention in Shao of an insulation capability from 12 to 240V with a 15-30A rating as required in amended claim 1 (p. 8).
Applicant also argues that Shao generally teaches a "laundry list" of suitable fillers (paragraph [0032]) and additives (paragraph [0033]); Shao is silent in any guidance for selection to achieve desired properties; Shao discloses (exceedingly generally in paragraph [0034]) that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary and, in certain embodiments, each of the selected additives for use in the thermoplastic composite can constitute from about 0.05 to about 2.0 weight percent or greater, based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite; thus, there would be no motivation (nor reasonable expectation of success) for one having ordinary skill in the art to select and combine the specific fillers and additives in the designated amounts recited in claim 1, to achieve the required performance of a thermoplastic based composite insulator having an efficacy to quench a high-energy arc generated during a short-circuit event for residential voltage applications with an insulation capability from 12 to 240V with a 15-30A rating, and a dielectric strength from 15 to 25 kV/mm (pp. 8-9).
In response, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, regarding Applicant’s argument that Shao generally teaches a "laundry list" of suitable fillers and additives, in response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Shao’s claim 5 teaches below:
PNG
media_image1.png
151
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Shao’s claim 5 would “at once envisage” polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, clay, and glass fiber from the nine components (silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, calcium carbonate, clay, glass fiber). Therefore, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, clay, and glass fiber as a filler in Shao’s claim 5 is not among a laundry list of fillers as alleged by Applicant.
Furthermore, Shao’s claim 7 teaches below:
PNG
media_image2.png
124
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Shao’s claim 7 would “at once envisage” fire retardant from the five components (anti-oxidant, ultraviolet absorber, ultraviolet stabilizer, long-term stabilizer, fire retardant). Therefore, fire retardant as an additive in Shao’s claim 7 is not among a laundry list of additives as alleged by Applicant.
Secondly, as discussed in claim 1 above, Shao teaches that the filler constitutes from greater than zero to about 70 weight percent based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0011], claim 6).
Thus, 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”.
Furthermore, Shao’s claim 5 teaches that the filler is selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, calcium carbonate, clay, glass fiber, and blends thereof. Even if the filler of Shao contains nine components (silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, calcium carbonate, clay, glass fiber), each of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, clay such as nanoclay, and glass fiber as the filler can still be in an amount of more than 0 wt.% to about 8 wt.% based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite of Shao, which still 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”.
Moreover, Shao teaches that the number of additives selected and the amount of each additive employed can vary ([0034]); each of the one or more additives can constitute about 2.0 wt.% or greater based on total weight of the thermoplastic composite ([0034], claim 10). Shao also teaches that the thermoplastic composite can include up to about 70 % by weight of additive(s) ([0031]). Shao teaches that the fire retardant can be metal phosphinate ([0012], claim 8).
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”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Thirdly, as discussed in claim 1 above, Shao teaches that the thermoplastic composite is used for insulating and encapsulating an electrical component ([0008]). Shen also teaches the filler(s) is used to render to the polymer an increase in dielectric strength and arc resistance, thereby imparting improved dielectric property to the thermoplastic composite (abstract, [0010]).
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 reasonably expect that the claimed dielectric strength from 15 to 25 kV/mm and the claimed property of an efficacy to quench a high-energy arc generated during a short-circuit event for residential voltage applications with an insulation capability from 12 to 240V with a 15-30A rating, 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 insulating and encapsulating an electrical component, and has good dielectric strength and arc resistance as recognized by Shao. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights