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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (KR 101845532) in view of Hudak (US 6177516). Koo has been cited in a prior Office Action.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, and 13, Koo teaches a non-toxic, flame-retardant composition for forming a coated insulated wire (Abstract). Koo’s composition contains 20-40 parts by weight of a polyolefin or ethylene copolymer resin, 10-40 parts by weight of thermoplastic elastomer, 20-50 parts by weight of maleic anhydride graftmer, 100-180 parts by weight of silane surface-treated inorganic flame retardant, and 0.1-2 parts by weight of an organic peroxide, as well as a crosslinking catalyst (Abstract). Specifically, Koo teaches polyethylene ethyl acrylate (p. 4, [0034]), polyolefin thermoplastic elastomer (p. 4, [0035]), and an ethylene-maleic anhydride graft copolymer (p. 4, [0036]; p. 8, Table 1). Koo also teaches use of magnesium hydroxide as the inorganic flame retardant (p. 4, [0037] and p. 6, [0057]). Koo further teaches that vinyltrimethoxysilane may be used in amounts between 0.5 parts by weight and 3 parts by weight (p. 5, [0042]), and that dicumyl peroxide may be used in amounts from 0.1 part by weight to 2 parts by weight.
However, Koo is silent as to use of linear low-density polyethylene grafted with maleic anhydride (MAH-g-LLDPE) (Abstract).
In the same field of endeavor, Hudak teaches a composition suitable for use as jacketing materials in wire and cable products (col. 9, lines 61-66). The composition includes LLDPE grafted with 0.5-4 wt% of maleic anhydride and having a melt index of 1-20 g/10 min (col. 6, lines 3-10). The composition may be prepared using strand cutting (col. 10, line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Koo with the MAH-g-LLDPE and strand-cutting preparation of Hudak, in the amounts taught by Hudak, to arrive at the claimed invention and to achieve a composition that exhibits enhanced resistance to delamination, as taught by Hudak (col. 1, lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 3, Koo in view of Hudak stands as applied to claims 1-2 above. Koo further teaches that ethylene-butene or ethylene-octene rubbers may be used (p. 4, [0034]).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 10-11, Koo in view of Hudak stands as applied to claims 1-4 above. Koo further teaches formation of the composition in a single-screw or melt extrusion process using a twin-screw extruder, and formation of an electric wire by feeding the mixed composition through a heated cylinder to insulate the wire (p. 7, [0061] and [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 13 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koo and Hudak.
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 ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights