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. This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed December 22,2022. Claims 1-18 are currently pending. Priority This application is the national stage entry of PCT/ IB2021/055615 , filed June 24,2021 , which claims priority to EP20182663.3 filed June 26,2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 1, line 10 “D638” is suggested to be replaced to “ ASTM D638”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites “ f lame performance of x at a thickness of at least 5 mm ”, which causes confusion. What do e s the phrase means? What is the meaning of “x” ? Does the Applicant intend to claim the flame performance of the composition at a thickness of at least 5mm? Applicant’s specification does not teach the meaning of x. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite in view of the specification. For purposes of examination the phrase “flame performance of x at a thickness of at least 5 mm” is interpreted as the composition achieve s a flame performance of UL94 V-0 rating in a material having a thickness of at least 5 mm. Applicant is invited to clarify. Claim Analysis Summary of Claim 1: A composition comprising: a. from 26 wt. % to 89 wt. % of a polycarbonate polymer component; b. from 0.5 wt. % to 20 wt. % of phosphazene -based flame retardant; c. from 0.01 wt. % to 4 wt. % of a siloxane component; and d. from 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % of a filler component, wherein the composition exhibits a notched Izod impact strength of at least 150 J/m when tested in accordance with ASTM D256 at 23 0 C and 5ft-lb on a 3.2 mm bar specimen wherein the composition exhibits a tensile elongation less than or equal to 2% when tested in accordance with D638 at 5 mm/min at break on a Type I bar specimen, wherein the composition achieves a probability of first time pass p(FTP) of at least 0.85 for normal Vo of at 1.2 mm according to UL 94 (2019), and wherein all weight percent are based on the total weight of the composition. Claim Interpretation Claim 14 recites” the phosphazene -based flame retardant is present in an amount from about 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt .%”. For purposes of examination the content of the phosphazene -based flame retardant is interpreted to be relative to the total weight of the composition. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 2 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 8 and 14-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al . ( WO 2020/118478 A1 as listed on the IDS dated 12/22/2022 ) Regarding claim s 1 and 14-15 , Huang et al. teach a polycarbonate composition comprising A) 25-60 wt.% of a polycarbonate, B) 10-40 wt.% of a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer, C) 20-30 wt.% of glass fibers, D) 1-5 wt.% of a phosphazene compound, E) 1-5 wt.% of an impact modifier such as a silicone-acryl ate rubbe r (corresponds to the siloxane component) , wherein all weight percentages unless otherwise indicated are based on the total weight of the polycarbonate composition (claim 1, abstract , claim 5, p.23-25 ) . Huang et al. further teach in a preferred embodiment, 37.05 wt.% of polycarbonate, 30 wt. % of polysiloxane polycarbonate copolymer, 25 wt. % of glass fibers, 2.5 wt. % of phosphazene compound, 2 wt. % of Metablen SX- 005 (silicon acrylate rubber that correspond to the component c) (Table 3, E1), as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, Huang et al. teach the composition reached the flame retardant level of both UL94 5VB@ 2.0 mm and Vo@ 1.0&1.5 mm requirements (p.35). Huang et al. are silent on the claimed properties recited in the instant claims. In view of the substantially identical composition of Huang et al . , the composition of Huang et al. will posse ss the claimed properties because the notched Izod impact strength, tensile elongation , flame performance and the p(FTP) are inherent properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).) Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. teach molded articles comprising the composition (abstract). Huang et al. are silent on the surface appearance of the molded product compared with another composition in the absence of the siloxane component. However, Huang et al. teach a substantially identical composition as set forth above for claim 1. Therefore the variation in surface appearance of the molded product of Huang et al. is considered to be the same as required by the instant claim 2. Regarding claim 3 , Huang et al. teach the composition wherein the phosphazene -based flame retardant comprises a phenoxyphosphazene such as Rabitle FP-110 (p.21, Table p.33), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 4 , Huang et al. teach the polycarbonate polymer component is a homopolycarbonate based on bisphenol A and a mixture of different polycarbonates (p.6-7) . Additionally, Huang et al. further teach the composition comprises a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer component (p.11) , thereby reading on the combination of the bisphenol-A polycarbonate homopolymer and a polycarbonate polysiloxane copolymer. Regarding claim 5 , Huang et al. teach the polycarbonate polymer component comprises a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer component (p.11 ), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 6 , Huang et al. teach the polycarbonate polymer component comprises 10-40 wt.%, of a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer component (p.11 ) . Huang et al. further teach 30 wt. % of the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer component in the example 1 ( (Table 3, E1) , as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim s 7 , 8 and 18 , Huang et al. teach a polycarbonate composition wherein the filler component comprises glass fibers (p.17-18, claim 1), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim s 16 , Huang et al. teach polycarbonate composition s and molded articles formed from these compositions (abstract), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 17 , Huang et al. teach the composition as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Huang et al. teach a method for forming the composition comprising: mixing all the components in a twin-screw extruder and granulating by extrusion to obtain granules. The granules are molded into molded articles by injection moulding (p.33), as required by the instant claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2013/0313493 A1) as evidenced by Momentive (Technical datasheet of SFR-100 for instant claim 12). Regarding claim s 1, 7-8, 14 and 15, Wen et al. teach flame retardant polycarbonate compositions comprising 50-90 wt.% polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer; 0.5 to 10 weight percent of a silicone oil (which correspond to the siloxane component) ; and 1 to 20 weight percent of a phosphazene compound; where in all weight percents are based on the total weight of the flame retardant composition (abstract, claim 22, [0002]-[0003], [0006], [0116], [0117]). Wen et al. further teach the flame retardant composition comprises a reinforcing filler such as glass fibers in a content of 5-45 wt.% ([0107]-[0109], [0112]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges. I n 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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range s taught by Wen et al . Additionally, Wen et al. teach the composition displays a flame retardancy of 5VA at a thickness of 2.0 millimeters or greater; when tested as per a UL-94 protocol . Wen et al. are silent on the claimed properties recited in the instant claims. However, i n view of the substantially identical composition of Wen et al . , the composition of Wen et al. is expected to have the claimed properties because the notched Izod impact strength, tensile elongation , flame performance and the p(FTP) are inherent properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).) Regarding claim 3 , Wen et al. teach the composition wherein the phosphazene -based flame retardant comprises a phenoxyphosphazene [0094], as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 5 , Wen et al. teach the composition comprises a polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer (abstract), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claims 10 and 11 , Wen et al. teach flame retardant polycarbonate compositions as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the silicone oil contains a combination of a linear silicone fluid and a silicone resin that is solubilized in the fluid, wherein the silicone oil comprises a polysiloxane polymer endcapped with trimethylsilane ; and a commercially available silicone oil for use in the flame retardant composition is SFR-100 from Momentive (abstract, [0116]-[0117]). It is noted that SFR-100 is disclosed in the instant specification as a MQ resin dissolved in dimethylpolysiloxane [0045], thereby reading on the MQ silicon resin of instant claim 10 and the siloxane component comprising MQ silicone resin and dimethyl siloxane of instant claim 11. Regarding claim 12 , Wen et al. teach SFR-100 as the siloxane component, wherein SFR-100 exhibit a viscosity of 200,000-900,000 cps (see Momentive, Technical datasheet of SFR-100), as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 13 , Wen et al. teach a flame retardant composition that displays a suitable combination of stiffness and ductility as well as a low melt viscosity that renders it easily processable by using modified polycarbonates including polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer and polyester-polycarbonate copolymer ([0008],[0024], [0028], [0033]-[0040]), (which corresponds to the aliphatic- BPA PC copolymer). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang et al. ( WO 2020/118478 A1 as listed on the IDS dated 12/22/2022) in view of Chen et al. (US 2007/0299174 A1). Regarding claim 9 , Huang et al. teach the composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Huang et al. are silent on the oligomeric siloxane additive. Chen et al. teach a flame retardant article formed from a composition comprising an effective amount of polycarbonate, an anti -drip agent, and flame retardant component , a synergistic combination of an elastomer-modified graft copolymer and a polysiloxane -polycarbonate copolymer and a siloxane oligomer. Chen et al. offers the motivation of using the siloxane oligomer due to its ability to improve drip resistance and flame retardance p erformance (abstract, claim 29). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the siloxane oligomer on the composition of Huang et al. , thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Claim s 10 -1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang et al. ( WO 2020/118478 A1 as listed on the IDS dated 12/22/2022) in view of Wen et al. (US 2013/0313493 A1) , as evidenced by Momentive (Technical datasheet of SFR-100 for instant claims 11 and 12 . ) Huang et al. teach the composition according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Regarding claims 10 and 11 , Huang et al. are silent on the siloxane component comprising an MQ silicone resin. Huang et al. are further silent on the siloxane component comprises an MQ silicone resin and a dimethyl siloxane. However, Wen et al. teach flame retardant polycarbonate compositions comprising 50-90 wt.% polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer; 0.5 to 10 weight percent of a silicone oil ; and 1 to 20 weight percent of a phosphazene compound; where in all weight percents are based on the total weight of the flame retardant composition and the composition displays a flame retardancy of 5VA at a thickness of 2.0 millimeters or greater; when tested as per a UL-94 protocol (abstract , claim 22, [0002]-[0003],[0006]). Wen et al. further teach the silicone oil contains a combination of a linear silicone fluid and a silicone resin that is solubilized in the fluid, wherein the silicone oil comprises a p olysiloxane polymer endcapped with trimethylsilane ; and a commercially available silicone oil for use in the flame retardant composition is SFR-100 from Momentive (abstract, [0116]-[0117]) . It is noted that SFR-100 is disclosed in the instant specification as a MQ resin dissolved in dimethylpolysiloxane [0045], thereby reading on the MQ silicon resin of instant claim 10 and the siloxane component comprising MQ silicone resin and dimethyl siloxane of instant claim 11. Wen et al. offers the motivation of using the SFR-100 due to its ability to improve flame retardancy performance ([0117], [0169], [0171]) and reduce smoke, flame out time and drip (see Momentive, Technical datasheet of SFR-100) . In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use SFR-100 on the composition of Huang et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 12 , Huang et al. are silent on the viscosity of the silicone component. Huang et al. in view of Wen et al. teach SFR-100 as the siloxane component , wherein SFR-100 exhibit a viscosity of 200,000-900,000 cps (see Momentive, Technical datasheet of SFR-100) , as required by the instant claim. Regarding claim 13 , Huang et al. teach the polycarbonates includes both homopolycarbonates and copolycarbonates , which can be linear or branched and mixtures of polycarbonates are also be used (p.5). Huang et al. are silent on the aliphatic-BPA PC copolymer. However, Wen et al. teach a flame retardant composition that displays a suitable combination of stiffness and ductility as well as a low melt viscosity that renders it easily processable by using modified polycarbonates including polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer and polyester-polycarbonate copolymer ([0008],[0024], [0028], [0033]-[0040]), (which corresponds to the aliphatic- BPA PC copolymer). Wen et al. offers the motivation of using the aliphatic- BPA PC copolymer due to its ability to improve melt flow and processing behavior without affecting the flame retardancy performance ([0008], [0040],[0042]). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyester-polycarbonate copolymer on the composition of Huang et al. to obtain a high flow polycarbonate composition [0040] , thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1152 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763