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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 3, 12 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 17-21, 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and claim 24 recite the composition has an elongation at break of 173-278%. However, the specification does not support all compositions with all ingredients and all ranges having the claimed range.
Claim 23 recites the composition has an elongation at break of 173-278% and at lease one of those properties such as limiting oxygen index etc. However, the experimental data from tables 1a and 1b only supports compositions having the claimed tensile strength in a range of 8.8-12.1 while having the elongation at break. Moreover, the specification does not support all compositions with all ingredients and all ranges having the claimed properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 17-21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (WO2019115588) in view of Liu et al (CN108203546).
It is noted that claim 1 and claim 24 are interpreted as the polymer composition consisting of components A) – F) although using the transitional phrase comprising, because the claim limits components A) – F) add up to 100 wt% of the polymer composition.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 17-21, 23-24: Nilsson teaches a halogen free flame retardant polyolefin composition for a wire or cable and the composition comprising 20-40 wt% of component A ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer, 0.5-8 wt% of component C silicone liquid or gum, 40-60 wt% of ground magnesium hydroxide surface treated with stearic acid and having a d50 of 3um, and 8.7 wt% of component E ethylene-alpha octene polymer having a density of 883 kg/m3, and 0.2 wt% of component i) AO which is an antioxidant and 5-25 wt% of a borate compound (examples, 5:14-16, 7:23-25, 8:3-10, 7:20-23, 16:13-15, 15:30-34). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Nilsson does not teach component B maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene.
However, Liu discloses a similar composition for a cable and teaches a compatibilizer can improve the compatibility of flame retardants or other components with polymers [0041]. The compatibilizer can be maleic anhydride grafted ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer with a maleic anhydride grafting rate of 0.5-2%. The amount of the compatibilizer is 2.6-4.6 wt% (0035, examples, calculation is available upon request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene into the composition of Nilsson to improve the compatibility of flame retardants or other components with polymers.
Liu further teaches the ethylene acrylate copolymer has an acrylate content of 20-40wt%. Some commercially available EBA copolymers such as
ExxonMobil™ ENBA900033 (32.5% BA) has a density of
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0.920 g/cm3; ExxonMobil™ ENBA330033 (32.5% BA) has a density of
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0.923 g/cm3;
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Westlake EBAC® SP1802 (22.5% BA) has a density of
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0.927 g/cm3; and
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Westlake EBAC® SP2811 (20% BA) has a density of
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0.927 g/cm3 (supporting documents are available upon request). A maleic anhydride grafting rate of 0.5-2 wt% would barely affect the density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made recognize that the maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene has the claimed density.
Nilsson exemplifies an embodiment consisting of components A, C)-F) wherein F) includes AO and borate. Including the compatibilizer of Liu into the composition of Nilsson results in a composition consisting of components A) – F). The content of component F) including AO and borate will be diluted after the addition of compatibilizer and overlaps the claimed range. Alternatively, Nilsson discloses the borate is optional for the composition making AO as the only ingredient for component F).
Nilsson is silent with respect to the properties of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Nilsson and Liu have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (WO2019115588) in view of Liu et al (CN108203546) and further in view of Liang et al (CN 103881229).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of CN 103881229 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Nilsson and Liu teach the limitation of 1, as discussed above.
Nilsson and Liu do not teach component B is a linear low density PE grafted with maleic anhydride.
However, Liang discloses a similar composition for cable and teaches the compatibilizer can be maleic anhydride grafted ethylene acrylate copolymer, or maleic anhydride grafted linear low density polyethylene [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made utilize maleic anhydride grafted linear low density polyethylene as compatibilizer because Liang teaches both are suitable for cable composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights