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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (2010/0227952) in view of Lei et al. (CN 102898769A).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-10: Futterer et al. teach a flame retardant polymer composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer [Examples], wherein the thermoplastic elastomer is SEBS [Examples], which has a high proportion of oils [0038]; and a flame retardant system; wherein the flame retardant system comprises ammonium polyphosphate [0046, Examples; Table 1], a claimed 1,3,5 triazine derivative [0046; Examples; Table 1] and a phosphate salt [0046; Examples; Table 1]. Futterer et al. teach that their composition is for cables [0037]. Futterer et al. teach a UL-94 vertical burn rating of V-0 at 1.6mm and 0.8mm [0048-0051; Tables 1-2].
The Examples of Futterer et al. fail to disclose a phosphinate salt.
However, Futterer et al. teach that, for their component C, a phosphinate salt can be used interchangeably with a phosphate salt [Abstract; 0008; Claim 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a phosphinate salt in place of the phosphate salt in the examples of Futterer et al. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Futterer et al. teach a weight ratio of ammonium polyphosphate (component A) to triazine derivative (component B) of 10:1 to 1:1 [0015] and that the total amount of A and B is from 60 to 99 wt% and components C (phosphinate salt) and D (melamine derivatives) make up 1 to 40 wt% of the total of A, B C and D (halogen-free flame retardant) [0009]. Futterer et al. teach that the amount of halogen-free flame retardant in the polymeric composition is 5 to 60 wt% [0011], which leaves 40-95 wt% for the thermoplastic elastomer.
Therefore, Futterer et al. teach amounts that overlap the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 6-10.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Futterer et al. fail to teach a polypropylene.
However, Lei et al. teach that in a thermoplastic elastomer flame retardant composition for cables [0002] that adding 0 to 30 wt% of polypropylene [0037] improves the plasticity and strength of the composition [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add up to 30 wt% of polypropylenes as taught by Lei et al. to the composition of Futterer et al. to improve the plasticity and strength of the composition. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of polypropylene for the desired plasticity and strength.
Regarding claim 4: Futterer et al. teach phosphinate salts comprising elements of the main groups II, III, or IV or Fe, Zn, Ti, Mn Zr and Mo [0008; Claim 17].
Regarding claim 11: Futterer et al. teach SEBS, copolyamides, thermoplastic polyolefins, and HDPE [Examples; Table 1].
Regarding claim 12: Futterer et al. teach 0 wt% of the claimed compounds [Examples; Table 1]. Futterer et al. also teach 0.01 to 5 wt% of the claimed additives [0042].
Regarding claim 19: Futterer et al. teach olefin-based thermoplastic elastomers (TPO) [0037, Examples; Claim 19]. The skilled artisan would immediately envisage an elthylene-α-olefin copolymer.
Claim(s) 3 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (2010/0227952) and Lei et al. (CN 102898769A) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Watanabe (5,718,875).
Futterer et al. fail to specify the crystalline form of their ammonium polyphosphate.
However, Watanabe teaches that crystalline form II is known as a flame retardant ingredient for use in synthetic resins, and that crystalline form II has improved properties over crystalline form I (column 1, lines 20-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ammonium polyphosphate with a crystalline form II as taught by Watanabe as the ammonium polyphosphate in Futterer et al. to use a known form, and one that provides improved properties.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (2010/0227952) and Lei et al. (CN 102898769A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Ravishankar et al. (6,271,311).
Futterer et al. teach an olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer [0037].
Futterer et al. fail to teach a specific olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Ravishankar et al. teach that ethylene α-olefin copolymer thermoplastic elastomers have been widely used in electrical applications for decades (column 1, lines 21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ethylene α-olefin copolymer as taught by Ravishankar et al. as the thermoplastic elastomer in Futterer et al. as the matrix to produce tubes for electric cables.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (2010/0227952) and Lei et al. (CN 102898769A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Karayianni (2012/0224818).
Futterer et al. fail to specify a phosphinate.
However, Karayianni teaches that aluminum diethyl phosphinate is a preferred phosphinate in an analogous composition [0057, 0084; Examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum diethyl phosphinate as taught by Karayianni as the phosphinate in Futterer et al. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer et al. (2010/0227952) and Lei et al. (CN 102898769A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Li et al. (CN 103740031A).
Futterer et al. teach that the composition comprises SEBS [Examples; Tables].
Futterer et al. fail to teach adding an oil to the composition.
However, Li et al. teach that adding of 24 to 40 wt% [Abstract; claim 1; 0009] filler oil to a SEBS improves the softness, elasticity and flowability during processing of a SEBS [0029]. Li et al. teach adding 25wt% oil [Examples; Table 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 25 wt% of oil as taught by Li et al. to the composition of Futterer et al. to improve the softness, elasticity and flowability during processing of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has made the argument that Futterer et al. fail to teach the claimed flame-retardant rating. This is not persuasive because Futterer et al. teach a UL-94 vertical burn rating of V-0 at not only 1.6mm, but also at 0.8mm [0048-0051; Tables 1-2]. Furthermore, Futterer et al. teach that the composition can comprise a very broad range of ammonium polyphosphate, including very low amounts, [0009] and still obtain an UL-94 vertical burn rating of V-0 at 1.6mm [0048-0051].
The applicant’s remarks regarding claims 20 and 21 have been addressed with the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights