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 Objections
Claims 12, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “the resin composition” in line 2. The claim should instead read “the flame retarded thermoplastic resin composition”.
Claim 13 recites “the resin composition” in lines 2-3. The claim should instead read “the flame retarded thermoplastic resin composition”.
Claim 17 recites “the process comprises” in line 1. The claim should instead read “the method comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A flame retardant compound having the general formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
99
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein x > 2; y is from 2 to 6; and z >1; and x > z, provided that when z is 1, x is >2.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasowski (US 20060175587).
Regarding claims 1-6, Kasowski discloses a flame retardant composition comprising reacting an ethylene diamine with a pyrophosphoric acid (claim 1), thereby reading on general formula I wherein x is 2, and thereby lying within the claimed range of instant claim 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Kasowski does not disclose an ethylene diamine comprising the structure of general formula (I) where y is from 2 to 6.
However, Kasowski does teach amino ethylpiperazine can be used as the ethylene amine [0032], thereby reading on general formula wherein y is 2 [0032] and thereby reading on the claimed amount of y is 2 for instant claim 1, 3, 4, and 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the DETA in sample 5-2 with amino ethylpiperazine since Kasowski teaches both are suitable ethylene diamines.
Kasowski is silent on whether the inequality x ≥ z and the amount of z as recited in instant claims 1, 2, 3, and 6.
However, Kasowski teaches the ratio of the acid (polyphosphoric acid) and the ethyleneamine is such that a 10% by weight solution of the flame retardant composition in water has a pH of between 2.5 and 6.0 (claim 1). Kasowski offesr the motivation that a lower pH results in a flame retardant with superior extrusion properties due to better thermal stability [0029]. Increasing the pH would result in a lower stability. Thus, the amount of x and z in general formula 1 would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount x and z in general formula 1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of x and z present in the flame retardant composition of Kasowski to reach the desired pH and stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claims 7-10, Kasowski teaches a composition comprising polypropylene and flame retardant sample 5-2, and melamine pyrophosphate was prepared [0076-0077], thereby reading on a thermoplastic polymer of instant claim 7, 8, and 10 and instant claim 9. Kasowski teaches the flame retardant sample 5-2 comprising DETA and polyphosphoric acid, thereby reading on the general formula (I) wherein x ≥ 2.
Kasowski does not disclose in an example a flame retarded thermoplastic resin composition comprising the flame retardant compound of general formula (I) where y is from 2 to 6.
However, Kasowski does teach amino ethyl piperazine can be used as the ethylene amine [0032], thereby reading on general formula wherein y is 2 [0032] and thereby lying within the claimed amount of y. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the DETA in sample 5-2 with amino ethylpiperazine since Kasowski teaches both are suitable ethylene diamines.
Kasowski is silent on whether the inequality x ≥ z and the amount of z as recited in instant claim.
However, Kasowski teaches the ratio of the acid (polyphosphoric acid) and the ethyleneamine is such that a 10% by weight solution of the flame retardant composition in water has a pH of between 2.5 and 6.0 (claim 1). Kasowski offers the motivation that a lower pH results in a flame retardant with superior extrusion properties due to better thermal stability [0029]. Increasing the pH would result in a lower stability. Thus, the amount of x and z in general formula 1 would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount x and z in general formula 1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of x and z present in the flame retardant composition of Kasowski to reach the desired pH and stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claim 11, Kasowski teaches the flame retardant sample 5-2 as discussed in the rejection of instant claim 7, wherein the amino ethylpiperazine and polyphosphoric acid has the same structure as aminoethyl piperazine polyphosphate and thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Kasowski is silent if the flame retarded thermoplastic resin composition of the example substantially lacks observable particles of the flame retardant compound [0077].
However, Kasowski teach the melting behavior enables the flame retardant composition to easily blend into polymers such as polypropylene and forms molecular dispersion with no particles apparent [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flame retarded thermoplastic resin composition would also be well blended since Kasowski teach the example has good thermal properties.
Regarding claim 13, Kasowski teaches in the example 20% of flame retardant was added [0077], thereby lying within the claimed range of at least 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 14, 15, and 18, Kasowski teaches a composition comprising polypropylene, thereby reading on the polyolefin of claim 14 and the thermoplastic resin of claim 15, and a flame retardant composition sample 5-2 comprising DETA and polyphosphoric acid [0076-0077], thereby reading on general formula (I) when x ≥ 2.
Kasowski does not disclose in an example a mixture comprising the flame retardant compound of general formula (I) where y is from 2 to 6.
However, Kasowski does teach amino ethyl piperazine can be used as the ethylene amine [0032], thereby reading on general formula wherein y is 2 [0032] and thereby lying within the claimed amount. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the DETA in sample 5-2 with amino ethylpiperazine since Kasowski teaches both are suitable ethylene diamines.
Kasowski is silent on whether the inequality x ≥ z and the amount of z as recited in instant claims.
However, Kasowski teaches the ratio of the acid (polyphosphoric acid) and the ethyleneamine is such that a 10% by weight solution of the flame retardant composition in water has a pH of between 2.5 and 6.0 (claim 1). Kasowski offers the motivation that a lower pH results in a flame retardant with superior extrusion properties due to better thermal stability [0029]. Increasing the pH would result in a lower stability. Thus, the amount of x and z in general formula 1 would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount x and z in general formula 1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of x and z present in the flame retardant composition of Kasowski to reach the desired pH and stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Kasowski is silent on the claimed use for the example composition.
However, Kasowski teaches the flame retardant resin composition is used for wire and cable insulation on conductor wires [0059], thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame retardant resin composition as a metal wire or cable covered with a resin as recited in instant claim 14 or a plastic molded component of instant claim 15 and the casing of instant claim 18 since Kasowski teaches the same applications.
Regarding claims 16, Kasowski teach in an example wherein polyphosphoric acid was reacted with DETA (diethylenetriamine) to form a flame retardant compound [0072], thereby reading on general formula (I) wherein x ≥ 2.
Kasowski does not disclose in an example a mixture comprising the flame retardant compound of general formula (I) where y is from 2 to 6.
However, Kasowski does teach amino ethylpiperazine can be used as the ethylene amine [0032], thereby reading on general formula wherein y is 2 [0032] and thereby lying within the claimed amount of y. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the DETA in sample 5-2 with amino ethylpiperazine since Kasowski teaches both are suitable ethylene diamines.
Kasowski is silent on whether the inequality x ≥ z and the amount of z as recited in instant claim,
However, Kasowski teaches the ratio of the acid (polyphosphoric acid) and the ethyleneamine is such that a 10% by weight solution of the flame retardant composition in water has a pH of between 2.5 and 6.0 (claim 1). Kasowski offesr the motivation that a lower pH results in a flame retardant with superior extrusion properties due to better thermal stability [0029]. Increasing the pH would result in a lower stability. Thus, the amount of x and z in general formula 1 would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount x and z in general formula 1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of x and z present in the flame retardant composition of Kasowski to reach the desired pH and stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claim 17, Kasowski teach in the same example that the products were dried in a vacuum oven at 150°C [0072], thereby reading on the claimed step.
Kasowski is silent on the method of the example comprises reacting a mixture of piperazine and aminoalkyl piperazine.
However, Kasowski teaches a mixture of ethyleneamine can be used to form the flame retardant (claim 1). Furthermore, Kasowski teaches piperazine can be used as the ethyleneamine [0022]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to react a mixture of piperazine and aminoalkyl piperazine since Kasowski teaches the same mixture.
Kasowski is also silent on the example comprising reacting with phosphoric acid.
However, Kasowski teach phosphoric acid, pyrophosphoric acid, and polyphosphoric acid and mixtures thereof can also be used to react with the ethyleneamine (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the phosphoric acid to the example since Kasowski teaches the same mixture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763