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 .
Any new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 2006/0270806) in view of Yanagida et al. (US 2008/0085955).
Regarding claim 1: Hale is directed to a copolyester composition comprising:
(a) from 90-98 wt% of a copolyester, the copolyester comprising: ([0068]-[0076])
(i) a diacid component comprising
from 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid
from 0 to 10 mole % residues of an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid
(ii) a glycol component comprising
from 10 to 90 mole % cyclohexanedimethanol residues and
from 0 to 25 mole % of a modifying glycol having 2 to 20 carbon atoms ([0348]-[0349] Hale).
0.1-20 weight % of an additive including flame retarding agents, wherein exemplary flame-retardants include organic halogenated compounds, including decabromodiphenyl ether and the like ([0538]-[0539]).
The UL94 rating is V-2 or better ([0517]).
The Izod impact strength of a test specimen 1/8’’ wide (3.2 mm) is at least 400 Joules/m per ASTM D256 ([0363]).
The Haze of about 0.2 to 3.0 percent as determined by a HunterLab UltraScan Sphere 8000 using Hunter's Universal Software, where % Haze=l00*Diffuse Transmission/Total Transmission ([0550]) (equivalent to a haze less than 10% according to ASTM D1003).
The weight % is based on the weight of the copolyester, wherein the total mole % of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole% and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %.
While Hale doesn’t mention a single copolyester composition simultaneously comprising the aforementioned components in a single composition, it would have been obvious to have selected such a composition since Hale discloses finite number of identified, predictable options and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a composition comprising claimed components (a) and (b) in claimed amounts to arrive at claim 1 of the present invention.
Hale discloses additive including decabromodiphenyl ether flame retardant and the like ([0538]-[0539]), although a flame retardant of claim 1 is not mentioned.
Yanagida is directed to a resin composition used to make a lens. The composition comprises a copolyester and a flame retardant including decabromodiphenyl ether as well as decabromodiphenyl ethane ([0205] Yanagida).
At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute decabromodiphenyl ether for decabromodiphenyl ethane and would have been motivated to do so because they are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. Further, the substitution of one flame retardant for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 2: The composition can comprise common additives including impact modifiers ([0390]).
Regarding claim 3: The copolyester comprises (b) a glycol component comprising:
i) 15 to 70 mole% of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues; and
ii) 30 to 85 mole % of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol ([0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 4: Yanagida discloses decabromodiphenyl ethane.
Regarding claim 5: Hale is directed to a method of making a copolyester composition comprising:
(a) from 90-98 wt% of a copolyester, the copolyester comprising: ([0068]-[0076])
(i) a diacid component comprising
from 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid
from 0 to 10 mole % residues of an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid
(ii) a glycol component comprising
from 10 to 90 mole % cyclohexanedimethanol residues and
from 0 to 25 mole % of a modifying glycol having 2 to 20 carbon atoms ([0348]-[0349] Hale).
0.1-20 weight % of an additive including flame retarding agents, wherein exemplary flame-retardants include organic halogenated compounds, including decabromodiphenyl ether and the like ([0538]-[0539]).
The UL94 rating is V-2 or better ([0517]).
The Izod impact strength of a test specimen 1/8’’ wide (3.2 mm) is at least 400 Joules/m per ASTM D256 ([0363]).
The Haze of about 0.2 to 3.0 percent as determined by a HunterLab UltraScan Sphere 8000 using Hunter's Universal Software, where % Haze=l00*Diffuse Transmission/Total Transmission ([0550]) (equivalent to a haze less than 10% according to ASTM D1003).
The weight % is based on the weight of the copolyester, wherein the total mole % of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole% and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %.
While Hale doesn’t mention a single copolyester composition simultaneously comprising the aforementioned components in a single composition, it would have been obvious to have selected such a composition since Hale discloses finite number of identified, predictable options and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a composition comprising claimed components (a) and (b) in claimed amounts to arrive at claim 5 of the present invention.
Hale discloses additive including decabromodiphenyl ether flame retardant and the like ([0538]-[0539]), although a flame retardant of claim 1 is not mentioned.
Yanagida is directed to a resin composition used to make a lens. The composition comprises a copolyester and a flame retardant including decabromodiphenyl ether as well as decabromodiphenyl ethane ([0205] Yanagida).
At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute decabromodiphenyl ether for decabromodiphenyl ethane and would have been motivated to do so because they are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. Further, the substitution of one flame retardant for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 6: Hale is directed to a copolyester composition comprising:
(a) from 90-98 wt% of a copolyester, ([0068]-[0076]) and
(b) from 0.1-20 weight % of an additive including flame retarding agents,
wherein exemplary flame-retardants include organic halogenated compounds, including decabromodiphenyl ether and the like ([0538]-[0539]).
Regarding claim 7: The method comprises compounding in a single
screw extruder, compounding in a twin screw extruder, or simply pellet blending the components together prior to processing.
Regarding claim 8: Hale is directed to a method of making a copolyester composition comprising:
(a) from 90-98 wt% of a copolyester, the copolyester comprising: ([0068]-[0076])
(i) a diacid component comprising
from 70-100 mol% terephthalic acid
from 0 to 10 mole % residues of an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid
(ii) a glycol component comprising
from 10 to 90 mole % cyclohexanedimethanol residues and
from 0 to 25 mole % of a modifying glycol having 2 to 20 carbon atoms ([0348]-[0349] Hale).
0.1-20 weight % of an additive including flame retarding agents, wherein exemplary flame-retardants include organic halogenated compounds, including decabromodiphenyl ether and the like ([0538]-[0539]).
The UL94 rating is V-2 or better ([0517]).
The Izod impact strength of a test specimen 1/8’’ wide (3.2 mm) is at least 400 Joules/m per ASTM D256 ([0363]).
The Haze of about 0.2 to 3.0 percent as determined by a HunterLab UltraScan Sphere 8000 using Hunter's Universal Software, where % Haze=l00*Diffuse Transmission/Total Transmission ([0550]) (equivalent to a haze less than 10% according to ASTM D1003).
The weight % is based on the weight of the copolyester, wherein the total mole % of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole% and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %.
While Hale doesn’t mention a single copolyester composition simultaneously comprising the aforementioned components in a single composition, it would have been obvious to have selected such a composition since Hale discloses finite number of identified, predictable options and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a composition comprising claimed components (a) and (b) in claimed amounts to arrive at claim 5 of the present invention.
Hale discloses additive including decabromodiphenyl ether flame retardant and the like ([0538]-[0539]), although a flame retardant of claim 1 is not mentioned.
Yanagida is directed to a resin composition used to make a lens. The composition comprises a copolyester and a flame retardant including decabromodiphenyl ether as well as decabromodiphenyl ethane ([0205] Yanagida).
At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute decabromodiphenyl ether for decabromodiphenyl ethane and would have been motivated to do so because they are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. Further, the substitution of one flame retardant for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 9: The copolyester comprises (b) a glycol component comprising:
i) 15 to 70 mole% of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol residues; and
ii) 30 to 85 mole % of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol ([0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 10: Yanagida discloses decabromodiphenyl ethane.
Regarding claim 11: The Haze of about 0.2 to 3.0 percent as determined by a HunterLab UltraScan Sphere 8000 using Hunter's Universal Software, where % Haze=l00*Diffuse Transmission/Total Transmission ([0550]).
Regarding claim 12: The method comprises compounding in a single
screw extruder, compounding in a twin screw extruder, or simply pellet blending the components together prior to processing.
Regarding claim 13: Articles includes films and sheets ([0488]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 9-10 Remarks) Applicant disagrees it would have been obvious to modify Hale in view of Yanagida. Yanagida is directed to a resin composition comprising a blend of polyester and polycarbonate wherein the diols contain fluorene containing compounds. Yanagida does not disclose a preference among a list of flame retardants at [0205]. There is no reason to modify Hale to arrive at Yanagida since Hale focuses on polycarbonate / polyester blend, while Hale discloses a polyester composition. Hale teaches phosphoric acid types are preferred.
This argument is not found persuasive since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute decabromodiphenyl ether for decabromodiphenyl ethane and would have been motivated to do so because they are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. Further, the substitution of one flame retardant for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2144.06(II). In other words, decabromodiphenyl ethane is a well known flame retardant used in similar compositions as demonstrated by Yanagida, and therefore obvious to have used in the composition of Hale.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights