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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed November 21, 2025.
The objection to the disclosure is withdrawn.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2).
Claims 14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) in view of Kato et al.
Claims 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) in view of Touhara et al.
Claims 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) in view of Goodman et al.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al in view of Mercx et al is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
The rejection of claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al in view of Mercx et al in view of Touhara et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Mercx et al in view of Goodman et al is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35 should be listed as canceled. 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) (CN 103739921).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 36, Wang et al (2) teaches a halogen free flame retardant composition comprising 10-100 parts by weight of ethylene-ethyl acetate copolymer, 0-30 parts by weight ethylene-octene copolymer and/or ethylene-butene copolymer and/or ethylene propylene diene rubber, 0-100 parts by weight of polyethylene, 0-20 parts by weight compatibilizer, 0.5-10 parts by weight of organosilicon polymer, 0.1-10 parts by weight of composite antioxidant, 0-200 parts by weight of aluminum hydroxide and/or magnesium hydroxide, 0.1-100 parts by weight of high molecular ammonium phosphate or phosphate ester flame retardant or melamine cyanurate or melamine pyrophosphate or phosphonate, 0.1-100 parts by weight of carbonate and/or phosphate and/or phosphide and/or clay and/or kaolin (Paragraph 37). Wang et al (2) further teaches preferably the carbonate is magnesium or calcium carbonate (Paragraph 31). Wang et al (2) further teaches preferably the organosilicon is one or more polydimethylsiloxane (Paragraph 29). Wang et al (2) further teaches (2) further teaches 0-3 parts of a lubricant wherein the lubricant can be stearic acid (Paragraph 22, Examples). Wang et al (2) teaches extruding the mixture (Paragraph 38). However, Wang et al (2) fails to specifically disclose 10-50wt% kaolin, 10-50% calcium or magnesium carbonate, 20-50wt% magnesium hydroxide wherein the mineral blend is present in the composition from 20-80wt% in the composition and the polymer is present in the composition from 20-80wt% and 0.01-5wt% of stearic acid and polysiloxane wherein the weight ratio between stearic acid and polysiloxane is 1:1-6:1, density and flammability rating and the composition comprising no halogen or phosphorus containing compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided 10-50wt% kaolin, 10-50% calcium or magnesium carbonate, 20-50wt% magnesium hydroxide wherein the mineral blend is present in the composition from 20-80wt% in the composition and the polymer is present in the composition from 20-80wt% and 0.01-5wt% of stearic acid and polysiloxane wherein the weight ratio between stearic acid and polysiloxane is 1:1-6:1 in Wang et al (2) as Wang et al (2) teaches a composition comprising overlapping amounts of the claimed components. For example, a composition comprising 15 parts ethylene-ethyl acetate copolymer, 15 parts ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, 15 parts polyethylene, 5 parts polymer compatibilizer, 2 parts polydimethylsiloxane, 3 parts stearic acid lubricant, 5 parts antioxidant, 10 parts melamine cyanurate, 10 parts magnesium hydroxide, 10 parts kaolin, 10 parts calcium or magnesium carbonate satisfies the ranges of the instant claims; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to the density and flammability rating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composition with the density and flammability rating within the same range/values as instantly claimed as Wang et al (2) teaches a flame retardant composition comprising a similar composition with overlapping components, hence a similar density and flammability is expected.
With respect to a composition comprising no halogen or phosphorus containing compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composition comprising no halogen or phosphorus containing compounds in Wang et al (2), as Wang et al (2) taches a halogen free and red phosphorus free composition (Paragraph 11). Furthermore, all of the phosphorus containing compounds listed are optional and not required in the composition. As recited above, Wang et al (2) teaches 0.1-100 parts by weight of high molecular ammonium phosphate or phosphate ester flame retardant or melamine cyanurate or melamine pyrophosphate or phosphonate; hence, the addition of melamine cyanurate for this component would provide a phosphorus free flame retardant component (see Example 3, as this example provides melamine cyanurate for this component in the composition). Likewise, Wang et al (2) teaches 0.1-100 parts by weight of carbonate and/or phosphate and/or phosphide and/or clay and/or kaolin; hence, the phosphorus containing component is not required in the composition.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) (CN 103739921) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 36 above, and in further view of Kato et al (US Patent 4,410,648 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Wang et al (2) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Wang et al (2) teaches the features above. However, Wang et al (2) fails to specifically disclose titanium dioxide and dicumyl peroxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Kato et al teaches a polymer composition with improved flame retarding property (Abstract). Kato et al further teaches mixing a base resin with components (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) to form the composition (Spec, Col. 11, Lines 15-20). Kato et al further teaches titanium dioxide as additional filler components that can be added to the composition (Col. 5, Line 56). Kato et al further teaches a preferred crosslinking agent is dicumyl peroxide (Col. 9, Line 23).
With regard to titanium dioxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided titanium dioxide in Wang et al (2) in view of Kato et al to provide a filler in the fire retardant polymer composition. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
With regard to dicumyl peroxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided dicumyl peroxide in Wang et (2) in view of Kato et al to provide a crosslinking agent to the fire retardant polymer composition. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) (CN 103739921) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 36 above, and in further view of Touhara et al (US Patent 6,444,736 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 20-21, Wang et al (2) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Wang et al (2) teaches the features above. However, Wang et al (2) fails to specifically disclose the melt flow rates.
In the same field of endeavor, Touhara et al teaches a flame retardant polyolefin composition (Abstract). Touhara et al further teaches a melt flow rate of between 0.1-50g/10 min (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flow rate at 150C and 230C within the same range as instantly claimed as Touhara teaches polyolefin flame retardant compositions having melt flow rates between 0.1-50g/10min, it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide between these ranges based on the compositions in Wang et al (2).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (2) (CN 103739921) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 36 above, and in further view of T Goodman et al (US Patent Application 2006/0089444 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 20-21, Wang et al (2) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Wang et al (2) teaches the features above. However, Wang et al (2) fails to specifically disclose the tensile strength and tensile strain at break.
In the same field of endeavor, Goodman et al teaches a flame retardant polymer composition comprising a clay mineral (Abstract). Goodman et al further teaches a polymer including polyolefins and a flame retardant component and other additives (Paragraphs 41-58). Goodman et al further teaches tensile strength at break values of 13-94% and tensile strength at break of 8-16MPa (Tables 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tensile strength and strain at break in Wang et al (2) in view of Goodman et al as Goodman et al teaches different tensile strength and strain at break; hence, it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to adjust the tensile strength and strain at break based on the compositions in Wang et al (2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Wang et al (2), Applicant argues that Wang et al (2) fails to teach a halogen and phosphorus free composition. With respect to a composition comprising no halogen or phosphorus containing compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composition comprising no halogen or phosphorus containing compounds in Wang et al (2), as Wang et al (2) taches a halogen free and red phosphorus free composition (Paragraph 11). Furthermore, all of the phosphorus containing compounds listed are optional and not required in the composition. As recited above, Wang et al (2) teaches 0.1-100 parts by weight of high molecular ammonium phosphate or phosphate ester flame retardant or melamine cyanurate or melamine pyrophosphate or phosphonate; hence, the addition of melamine cyanurate for this component would provide a phosphorus free flame retardant component (see Example 3, as this example provides melamine cyanurate for this component in the composition). Likewise, Wang et al (2) teaches 0.1-100 parts by weight of carbonate and/or phosphate and/or phosphide and/or clay and/or kaolin; hence, the phosphorus containing component is not required in the composition.
The obviousness rejection over Kato et al in view of Mercx et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 at (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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 January 24, 2026