CTFR 17/922,988 CTFR 83866 Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 5/11/26 and 5/13/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claims 1 and 14 to recite that the polar-modified polyolefin wax is a maleic anhydride-functionalized polyolefin wax prepared using a metallocene catalyst. Applicants have filed a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 by one of the inventors of the instant application. The Declaration does not include any additional experimental data but includes additional arguments regarding the four working examples and the one comparative example from the instantly filed specification. Additionally, the Declaration includes Exhibit A which is a picture of a comparative example having no component polyolefin wax showing drool at the die/nozzle during pipe extrusion. The Declaration also includes Exhibit B which is a picture of inventive composition E1 showing no deposits at the die/nozzle during pipe extrusion. These differences between the working and comparative examples are noted. It can be appreciated that Applicants have discovered an unexpected property improvement by the addition of component G. However, the four nearly identical working examples showing improved flame retardancy at exactly 0.1 wt% of component G is insufficient to demonstrate that the unexpected results would be achieved across the entire claimed range of 0.05 to 1 wt%, particularly in view of the broad variance permitted for components (A) through (F) and the open-ended component (H) “0-50 wt% of further additional substances”. To be commensurate in scope with the evidence, the claims would need to be critically narrowed to the specific concentrations and specific polymer compositions tested. That is to say, a 0.1 wt% addition of component G might may work in the unexpected manner shown by Applicants in one specific thermoplastic polyester blend, but fail in others if the ratios and structural nature of components A, B, C, or D shift drastically. Additionally, the claim is drawn to a maleic anhydride-functionalized polyolefin wax. However, the working examples specifically employs a maleic anhydride-functionalized ethylene homopolymer (Licocene PE MA 4221) but the claim text still allows for copolymers with 1-olefins of 3-18 carbon atoms or propylene homopolymers, and therefore this limitation still makes component G much broader than the employed polyethylene wax. By Applicants admission that the addition of 0.1 wt% of polyolefin wax is unexpected, they are also admitting that the underlying chemistry is unpredictable. If the underlying chemistry is unpredictable, then Applicants cannot logically argue that it is “predictable” that the effect observed in Applicants four narrow working examples would still be present in the entire 0.05-1 wt% range based solely on a 0.1 wt% example. The data point at 0.1 wt% is twice the amount of the lower limit (0.05 wt%) and a full order of magnitude away from the upper limit. A single data point is an island; Applicants need a bridge to connect it to the rest of the range. For these reasons, the prior art rejection of Wagner et al. in view of Lechner et al. as well as the double patenting rejection are wholly maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 14 each recite that component G is a polyolefin wax prepared from a metallocene catalyst, or a homopolymer of propylene, which is polar modified. The claim later states that the polar-modified polyolefin wax is a maleic anhydride-functionalized polyolefin wax prepared using a metallocene catalyst. This renders claims 1 and 14 indefinite since it raises the question as to whether or not homopolymers of propylene are permitted. Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on either claim 1 or 14. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 2018/0298189) in view of Lechner et al. (US 2006/0025508) . Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19: Wagner et al. teaches and claims a thermoplastic molding composition comprising (A) from 10 to 99% by weight of a thermoplastic polyester, (B) from 0.1 to 30 wt% of a poly( e -caprolactone), (C) from 0.1 to 30 wt% of a biodegradable polyester wherein polyesters (A), (B), and (C) are all different from each other. The thermoplastic molding compositions taught by Wagner et al. further comprise (D) from 0.1 to 30 wt% of a phosphinic salt, (E) from 0 to 20 wt% of a nitrogen-containing flame retardant, (F) from 0 to 15 wt% of an aromatic phosphate ester having at least one alkyl-substituted phenyl ring, and (G) from 0 to 50 wt% of further additional substances, where the sum of percentages by weight of components (A) through (G) is 100%. Components (A) through (G) of Wagner et al. are the same as components (A) through (F) and (H), respectively of independent claim 1. Wagner et al. additionally teaches that up to 1 wt% of lubricants and mold-release agents may be included with preference given to those waxes taught in paragraph 0186. The waxes recited in paragraph 0186 include low-molecular-weight polyethylene and low-molecular-weight polypropylene waxes, montan waxes and calcium stearate. While Wagner et al. does not explicitly teach adding a polyolefin wax which is polar modified by reacting the polyolefin wax with an a,b -unsaturated carboxylic acid (recited as component (G) of independent claim 1), one having ordinary skill in the art wound have found it obvious to have included such a polyolefin wax given the teachings of Lechner et al. Lechner et al. is directed to the use of polyolefin waxes which are employed as a processing aid or a dispersing aid to polycondensates including polyesters Wagner et al. teaches polyester-based flame-retardant molding composition and explicitly suggests the inclusion of various lubricants to aid in processing. Lechner et al. teaches the specific use of component (G) with polyesters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the lubricant taught by Lechner et al. in the compositions of Wagner et al., because Wagner et al. discloses the employment of lubricants and Lechner et al. confirms that component (G) as a lubricant is effective for the very polymers used in Wagner et al. (polybutylene terephthalate). Further, Lechner et al. has recognized that the lubricant employed in the working examples therein, have improved properties compared to the comparative lubricants employed therein. The comparative lubricants include many of the same lubricants which are disclosed by Wagner et al. This makes the teachings of Lechner et al. more compelling regarding the addition of the inventive lubricants taught therein to the compositions taught by Wagner et al. The fact that Lechner et al is silent as to the flame retardancy is not dispositive, as the motivation to include the lubricant is driven by the processing requirements taught in Wagner, leading to the predictable result of a lubricated, flame-retardant composition. Regarding the amount of lubricant, Wagner et al. teaches that up to 1 wt% may be employed. The beneficial properties observed in the compositions disclosed by Lechner et al. comprise 0.3 wt% of lubricant (paragraph 0050), which falls within the up to 1 wt% range disclosed by Wagner et al. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ the lubricants disclosed by Lechner et al., including TP Licocene PE MA 4221 (which is one out of two inventive lubricants disclosed therein), in an amount of 0.3 wt%, which falls within the 0.05 to 1 wt% range of component (G) of claim 1 and within the 0.07 to 0.7 wt% range of claim 18. The wax TP Licocene PE MA 4221 is a maleic anhydride-grafted metallocene polyethylene wax satisfying claim 19. Claims 3 and 16: Wagner et al. teaches that component (A) is based on aromatic dicarboxylic acid and based on an aliphatic or aromatic dihydroxy compound (paragraph 0013) which satisfies claim 3 and the exemplified thermoplastic polyester (A) is polybutylene terephthalate which satisfies claim 16. Claims 4 and 17: Component (C) of Wagner et al. is preferred to be those which satisfy the limitations of claim 4 (paragraph 0071). Wagner et al. further teaches that preferred polyesters as component (C) are polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and polybutylene sebacate terephthalate (PBSeT) (paragraph 0079) which satisfies claims 4 and 17. Claims 5 and 6: Component (D) of Wagner et al. is taught to be a phosphinic salt of formulae (I) and (II), or polymers therefrom (paragraph 0089) and that it is preferred that R 1 and R 2 are preferably hydrogen, methyl, and ethyl, which satisfies claims 5 and 6. Claim 7: Wagner et al. teaches that component (E) is a reaction product of melamine and cyanuric acid or isocyanuric acid thereby satisfying claim 7 (paragraph 0100). Claims 8-11: Wagner et al. employs the compound recited in claim 11 in the working examples, which is taught as having a melting point of 95 °C, thereby satisfying component (F) of claims 8-11 (paragraph 0210). Claims 12 and 13: The exemplified thermoplastic compositions of Wagner et al. are used to prepare moldings which satisfies the limitations of claims 12 and 13. Claim 14: The rejection of claim 1 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 14. The combined teachings of Wagner et al. and Lechner et al. render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of a composition which includes components (A) through (D) and a polyolefin wax according to claim 14 for reasons described in claim 1 above. The preparation of such a composition would require mixing said polyolefin wax with the other components of the compositions taught by Wagner et al. Such a mixing step satisfies all of the active method steps recited in claim 14. While claim preamble states “a method for improving the flame retardancy of a thermoplastic molding composition”, the teachings of Wagner et al. in view of Lechner et al. render obvious the active step of mixing the claimed polyolefin wax with components (A) through (D) of claim 14. The claim preamble does not limit the structure of the claimed invention and is recognized as a statement of intended use, and therefore does not serve to further limit the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. Claim 15: The thermoplastic molding compositions taught by Wagner et al. include embodiments where the thickness of the molded product is 0.4 mm (paragraph 0218). Wagner et al. additionally teaches that the desired end use for the molding compositions therein is for thin-walled parts (paragraphs 0010 and 0193). As such, Wagner et al. renders obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of a thin-walled part where the wall thickness is at more 0.4 mm as required by claim 15. Table 2 of Wagner et al. shows a flame retardancy rating of V-0 for all exemplified compositions at a thickness of 0.4 mm. Claim 20: The preparation of a composition comprising components (A), (C), and (D) as recited in claim 20 would have been obvious given the teachings of Wagner et al. Specifically, component (A) is exemplified to be polybutylene terephthalate, component (D) is exemplified to be diethylphosphinate, and component (C) is taught to preferably include either polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate of polybutylene sebacate-co-terephthalate (paragraph 0079). Given this teaching, the employment of either one of these specifically taught polyesters would have been prima facie obvious, thereby satisfying claim 20 . Double Patenting 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-13, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,808,120 to Wagner et al. (which is the patent issued from pre-grant publication US 2018/0298189) in view of Lechner et al. (US 2006/0025508) . Wagner et al. claims a thermoplastic molding composition which includes the same or substantially the same claimed subject matter regarding components (A) through (F) and (G) as the instantly filed claims. Wagner et al. does not claim an ingredient satisfying component (G) of claims 1 and 2. However, the inclusion of such an ingredient in an amount of 0.05 to 1 wt% would have been obvious given the teachings of Lechner et al. The reasons for this obvious inclusion can be found in the 103 rejection of Wagner et al. in view of Lechner et al. and that obviousness type rejection is wholly incorporated into this double patenting rejection. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 3 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 4 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 5 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 6 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 17/922,988 Page 7 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights