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 .
In their response dated 6/18/2026 applicants amended independent claim to recite a flame retardant additive composition which comprises at least one glow suppressant comprising melamine polyphosphate and at least one brominated flame retardant which comprised aromatically bound bromine and is a brominated anionic chain transfer vinyl aromatic polymer which contains about 70 wt.% or more of bromine. The glow suppressant is utilized in an amount of 2 wt.% or more. Claim 13 is amended in a similar manner as a process of forming flame retardant additive. Claim 25 is amended in a similar manner as a flame retarded polyolefin composition. Claim 36 is amended in the same manner as instant claim 1 except it is directed to a process of making flame retardant polyolefin composition.
Claim 47 is amended to recite polyolefin polymers utilized with a flame retardant amount of a brominated flame retardant. This claim does not require melamine polyphosphate.
Claim 54 is amended in the same manner as claim 1, except that it is directed to a polyolefin masterbatch.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26-28, 31, 33, 35, 37-39, 42, 44, 46, 48-51, 53, 55-58, 60-62 and 64 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 52, 54, 59, 61 and 63 are pending.
The rejections of record will be restated and grouped by independent claims.
Response to Arguments
In their arguments dated 6/18/2026 applicants stated following:
With respect to rejection over Thomas in view of Andrews:
Composition of Thomas requires two polybrominated organic compounds, therefore it would not have been obvious to modify Thomas and use MPP in place of required brominated compound.
Examiner agrees. Amendment overcomes the prior art of Thomas. The examiner utilized Thomas because it taught triazine compounds as additional flame retardants. Currently, amended claims no longer recite triazine compounds but melamine polyphosphate. According to [0049] of Thomas, it is preferable to avoid any other halogen or phosphorus containing flame retardants. MPP contains phosphate as such is it excluded by Thomas.
Neither Thomas not Andrews particularly describe that MPP can reduce afterglow, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the results shown in the instant invention.
The references applied in the rejection do not have to explicitly state that MPP reduces glow. This is because compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive.
The courts have held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). Further, attention is drawn to MPEP 2112.01, which states that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”, In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art, has to possess an extensive knowledge of the flame retardants. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that MPP is an intumescent flame retardant that can effectively suppress glow and flame. MPP is a synergistic type flame retardants comprising melamine and polyphosphoric acid. When heated, it undergoes an endothermic decomposition absorbing heat and acting as a “heat sink”. The released phosphoric acid forms a protective carbonaceous char layer while melamine acts as a blowing agent to expand the char into an insulating foam. The char layer reduces heat transfer and oxygen supply to the combustion zone, which directly suppresses glow and flame.
Andrews discloses many different types of possible flame retardants; therefore, it is not clear that modifying Thomas with Andrews would necessarily result in a composition that would provide glow suppression of the instant invention.
This argument is moot since the rejection is withdrawn. New references will be applied to properly reflect the amendments.
With respect to rejection over Thomas in view of Andrews and in further view of Layman:
Applicants indicated that Layman does not cure deficiencies of Thomas and Andrews with regards to the use of MPP.
Response:
Applicant’s arguments do not address the grounds of rejection. Layman was utilized to meet limitations directed at brominated flame retardants not MPP.
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.
Claims 9, 21, 32 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 21 and 32 recite the same limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims are confusing because the composition comprises at least one inorganic compound, and at the same time the inorganic compound is zinc borate and aluminum diethyl phosphinate, which are two very distinct compounds. It is not clear if the applicants mean both compounds are included or only one, because proper Markusch language is not utilized. Specifically, according to MPEP 2173.05(h) the Markush language may recite for example: A...wherein R is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D or A...wherein R is A, B, C or D.
To expedite the prosecution of this application, the examiner will treat the claim such that only one of the two compounds will meet the claim.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeShriver (US 2002/0086927) in view of Layman (WO 2009/0148464).
With respect to claim 1, DeShriver discloses flame retardant formulation for use in polymer composition. The flame retardant composition comprises a polybromostyrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 65% (claim 5) and zinc borate (claim 1). According to [0056] pf DeShriver the brominated styrene polymer has bromine content of at least 67%, which meet “about 70%” of instant claim 1. In the same paragraph DeSchriver teaches that the flame retardant system can comprise additional non-halogenated flame retardants which include melamine-phosphorus based flame retardants. Melamine polyphosphate is explicitly recited. The content of the non-halogenated flame retardant is not limited as long as it does not materially detract from the performance of the invention. Content of brominated flame retardant alone is 8-16 wt.% [0017].
As it was indicated above DeSchriver discloses brominated styrene which have at least 67% of bromine, but does not disclose examples of such flame retardants.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 67% in DeSchriver.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of DeSchriver and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to claims 5 and 9, DeSchriver further teaches inorganic component. One of the components is zinc borate, antimony trioxide was utilized in additional amount of 3% (example 9) and in example 12 antimony trioxide completely replaced zinc borate. The composition of DeSchriver can further comprise talc [0069], wherein the content of zinc and antimony already meets claimed “about 10 wt.% or more”. Per [0009] zinc compound is utilized in amount of 3-12 wt.% addition of talc clearly envisaged by DeSchriver will increase the content. It should be noted also that talc in addition to being used as a filler, it is also known for its function as lubricant, anti-dripping agent, flame retardant and the like, wherein DeSchriver allows additional flame retardants [0056].
Claims 13, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeShriver (US 2002/0086927) in view of Layman (WO 2009/0148464).
With respect to claim 13, DeShriver discloses additive flame retardant formulation for use in polymer composition. The process include step of combining flame retardants as well as inorganic compounds, to form an additive. [0036-0037]. The additive can then be incorporated into polymeric component. The flame retardant composition comprises a polybromostyrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 65% (claim 5) and zinc borate (claim 1). According to [0056] pf DeShriver the brominated styrene polymer has bromine content of at least 67%, which meet “about 70%” of instant claim 1. In the same paragraph DeSchriver teaches that the flame retardant system can comprise additional non-halogenated flame retardants which include melamine-phosphorus based flame retardants. Melamine polyphosphate is explicitly recited. The content of the non-halogenated flame retardant is not limited as long as it does not materially detract from the performance of the invention. Content of brominated flame retardant alone is 8-16 wt.% [0017].
As it was indicated above DeSchriver discloses brominated styrene which have at least 67% of bromine, but does not disclose examples of such flame retardants.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 67% in DeSchriver.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of DeSchriver and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to claims 17, 19 and 21, DeSchriver further teaches inorganic component. One of the components is zinc borate, antimony trioxide was utilized in additional amount of 3% (example 9) and in example 12 antimony trioxide completely replaced zinc borate. The composition of DeSchriver can further comprise talc [0069], wherein the content of zinc and antimony already meets claimed “about 10 wt.% or more”. Per [0009] zinc compound is utilized in amount of 3-12 wt.% addition of talc clearly envisaged by DeSchriver will increase the content. It should be noted also that talc in addition to being used as a filler, it is also known for its function as lubricant, anti-dripping agent, flame retardant and the like, wherein DeSchriver allows additional flame retardants [0056].
Claims 25, 29, 30, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeShriver (US 2002/0086927) in view of Thomas (WO 2006/019414) Layman (WO 2009/0148464).
With respect to claims 25 and 29, DeShriver discloses flame retardant formulation for use in polymer composition. The flame retardant additive is incorporated into polymer. The polymers include olefin based polymers, such as homopolymers or copolymers of propylene [0060], functionalized polyolefins [0061] as well as polymers based on polyethylene [0062]. The flame retardant composition comprises a polybromostyrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 65% (claim 5) and zinc borate (claim 1). According to [0056] pf DeShriver the brominated styrene polymer has bromine content of at least 67%, which meet “about 70%” of instant claim 1. In the same paragraph DeSchriver teaches that the flame retardant system can comprise additional non-halogenated flame retardants which include melamine-phosphorus based flame retardants. Melamine polyphosphate is explicitly recited. The content of the non-halogenated flame retardant is not limited as long as it does not materially detract from the performance of the invention. Content of brominated flame retardant alone is 8-16 wt.% [0017].
As it was indicated above DeSchriver discloses brominated styrene which have at least 67% of bromine, but does not disclose examples of such flame retardants.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine and number average molecular range preferably being 1070-8200 [030]. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 67% in DeSchriver. The at least 72 % of bromine along with number average molecular weight content meets instant claim 34.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of DeSchriver and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to the thermoplastic polymers, DeSchriver teaches use of polyamides and polyester blend with polyolefin, which is not the same as flame retarded polyolefin.
Thomas expands on the teachings of DeSchriver by several different types of matrix polymers that can be used with brominated styrenic flame retardants. Starting [0037] polyolefin homopolymers and copolymers. Examples given are polyethylene, polypropylene as well as ethylene/propylene copolymers. Narrower scope of the matrix polymers include polystyrenes and polyolefins [0042].
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention, to utilize polyolefins disclosed by DeSchriver as a matrix polymer as shown in Thomas. Thomas clearly establishes that polyolefins can be flame retarded by brominated styrene polymers having high bromine content. Similarly, to other polymers brominated styrenic flame retardants will reduce or even eliminate thermal degradation of polyolefins, which is the same effect that these flame retardants have on polymers of DeSchriver. Additionally use of polyolefins is already contemplated by DeSchriver consequently utilizing polyolefins will result article having polymers having good compatibility (better than polyamide or polyester blend with polyolefins which lack polarity).
The inorganic component of DeSchriver is 8-12 wt.% content of additional flame retardant (here melamine polyphosphate) is up to 15 wt.% [0005]. Content of the inorganic compound (zinc borate) meets instant claim 29.
With respect to claims 30 and 32, DeSchriver further teaches inorganic component. One of the components is zinc borate, antimony trioxide was utilized in additional amount of 3% (example 9) and in example 12 antimony trioxide completely replaced zinc borate. The composition of DeSchriver can further comprise talc [0069], wherein the content of zinc and antimony already meets claimed “about 10 wt.% or more”. Per [0009] zinc compound is utilized in amount of 3-12 wt.% addition of talc clearly envisaged by DeSchriver will increase the content. It should be noted also that talc in addition to being used as a filler, it is also known for its function as lubricant, anti-dripping agent, flame retardant and the like, wherein DeSchriver allows additional flame retardants [0056].
Claims 36, 40, 41, 43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeShriver (US 2002/0086927) in view of Thomas (WO 2006/019414) Layman (WO 2009/0148464).
With respect to claim 36, 40, 43 and 45, DeShriver discloses flame retardant formulation for use in polymer composition. The steps include forming an additive [0036] which includes combining flame retardants and inorganic compounds (zinc borate) then the additive is incorporated into a polymer. The flame retardant additive is incorporated into polymer. The polymers include olefin based polymers, such as homopolymers or copolymers of propylene [0060], functionalized polyolefins [0061] as well as polymers based on polyethylene [0062]. The flame retardant composition comprises a polybromostyrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 65% (claim 5) and zinc borate (claim 1). According to [0056] pf DeShriver the brominated styrene polymer has bromine content of at least 67%, which meet “about 70%” of instant claim 1. In the same paragraph DeSchriver teaches that the flame retardant system can comprise additional non-halogenated flame retardants which include melamine-phosphorus based flame retardants. Melamine polyphosphate is explicitly recited. The content of the non-halogenated flame retardant is not limited as long as it does not materially detract from the performance of the invention. Content of brominated flame retardant alone is 8-16 wt.% [0017]. Zinc borate is utilized in a range of 3-8 wt.% and can be completely or partially replaced with antimony trioxide (see example 9 and 12). Content of zinc borate meets the limitation of instant claims 40 and 43.
As it was indicated above DeSchriver discloses brominated styrene which have at least 67% of bromine, but does not disclose examples of such flame retardants.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine and number average molecular range preferably being 1070-8200 [030]. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 67% in DeSchriver. The at least 72 % of bromine along with number average molecular weight content meets instant claim 45.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of DeSchriver and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to the thermoplastic polymers, DeSchriver teaches use of polyamides and polyester blend with polyolefin, which is not the same as flame retarded polyolefin.
Thomas expands on the teachings of DeSchriver by several different types of matrix polymers that can be used with brominated styrenic flame retardants. Starting [0037] polyolefin homopolymers and copolymers. Examples given are polyethylene, polypropylene as well as ethylene/propylene copolymers. Narrower scope of the matrix polymers include polystyrenes and polyolefins [0042].
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention, to utilize polyolefins disclosed by DeSchriver as a matrix polymer as shown in Thomas. Thomas clearly establishes that polyolefins can be flame retarded by brominated styrene polymers having high bromine content. Similarly, to other polymers brominated styrenic flame retardants will reduce or even eliminate thermal degradation of polyolefins, which is the same effect that these flame retardants have on polymers of DeSchriver. Additionally use of polyolefins is already contemplated by DeSchriver consequently utilizing polyolefins will result article having polymers having good compatibility (better than polyamide or polyester blend with polyolefins which lack polarity).
The inorganic component of DeSchriver is 8-12 wt.% content of additional flame retardant (here melamine polyphosphate) is up to 15 wt.% [0005]. Content of the inorganic compound (zinc borate) meets instant claim 40.
With respect to claim 41, DeSchriver further teaches inorganic component. One of the components is zinc borate, antimony trioxide was utilized in additional amount of 3% (example 9) and in example 12 antimony trioxide completely replaced zinc borate. The composition of DeSchriver can further comprise talc [0069], wherein the content of zinc and antimony already meets claimed “about 10 wt.% or more”. Per [0009] zinc compound is utilized in amount of 3-12 wt.% addition of talc clearly envisaged by DeSchriver will increase the content. It should be noted also that talc in addition to being used as a filler, it is also known for its function as lubricant, anti-dripping agent, flame retardant and the like, wherein DeSchriver allows additional flame retardants [0056].
Claims 47 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Lyman (WO 2009/148464).
With respect to claim 47, Thomas comprises retarded polyolefin comprising brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide and talc.
Specifically polyolefin of Thomas is defined in [0042] are based on polyethylene, polypropylene and other olefinic components and their copolymers such as ethylene propylene copolymer.
The brominated anionic styrene polymer of Thomas have weight average molecular weight 3000-10,000 and polydispersity between 1 and 4. Consequently the number average molecular weight will be in a range of 3000 to 10,000 for PD = 1 and 750- 2,500 for PD=4. The bromine content in the brominated styrene polymer disclosed in Thomas is at least 64% [0013] wherein at least includes content higher than 64%.
Talc is disclosed in [0064] pf Thomas.
Flame retardant synergist antimony trioxide is utilized with the brominated styrene polymers of Thomas at a ratio of 5:1, preferably 3:1 [0047-0048].
Content of the flame retardant in the polymer composition of Thomas is 2-25 wt.% With synergist being in a ratio of 3:1, the content of synergist flame retardant can be up to approximately 6.25 wt.% based on the disclosed ratio.
While Thomas discloses that the bromine content can be at least 64%, Thomas does not provide any examples of higher content.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine and number average molecular range preferably being 1070-8200 [030]. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 64% of Thomas. The at least 72 % of bromine along with number average molecular weight of the polymers of Lyman encompasses number average molecular weight of Thomas including overlapping polydispersity.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to claim 52, as disclosed above, number average molecular weight disclosed in Layman further encompasses the limitation of bromine content in addition to number average molecular weight.
Claims 54, 59, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeShriver (US 2002/0086927) in view of Thomas (WO 2006/019414) Layman (WO 2009/0148464).
With respect to claim 54, DeShriver discloses flame retardant formulation for use in polymer composition. The steps include forming an additive [0036] which includes combining flame retardants and inorganic compounds (zinc borate) then the additive is incorporated into a polymer to form a masterbatch [0071-0072]. The polymers include olefin based polymers, such as homopolymers or copolymers of propylene [0060], functionalized polyolefins [0061] as well as polymers based on polyethylene [0062]. The flame retardant composition comprises a polybromostyrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 65% (claim 5) and zinc borate (claim 1). According to [0056] pf DeShriver the brominated styrene polymer has bromine content of at least 67%, which meet “about 70%” of instant claim 1.
In the same paragraph DeSchriver teaches that the flame retardant system can comprise additional non-halogenated flame retardants which include melamine-phosphorus based flame retardants. Melamine polyphosphate is explicitly recited. The content of the non-halogenated flame retardant is not limited as long as it does not materially detract from the performance of the invention. Content of brominated flame retardant alone is 8-16 wt.% [0017]. Zinc borate is utilized in a range of 3-8 wt.% and can be completely or partially replaced with antimony trioxide (see example 9 and 12). Content of zinc borate and/antimony trioxide meets the limitation of instant claim 59.
As it was indicated above DeSchriver discloses brominated styrene which have at least 67% of bromine, but does not disclose examples of such flame retardants.
Layman is directed to making brominated styrene flame retardants, which have a bromine content of at least 72% and low content of labile bromine and number average molecular range preferably being 1070-8200 [030]. The bromine content of at least 72% meets the requirement of at least 67% in DeSchriver. The at least 72 % of bromine along with number average molecular weight content meets instant claim 63.
Lyman teaches that the such flame retardants are also chain transfer agents, and final result provides molded articles which will have good heat distortion temperatures [0007-0008]. Lyman further teaches that the brominated styrenic polymers due to higher content of bromine result in more flame retardancy, which in turn offers cost saving to the manufacturer. Low content of labile bromine is desired because it minimizes release of HBr has negative effect on compounding and molding equipment itself [0009-0011]. In addition, based on thermogravimetric analysis, these polymers are thermally stable and temperatures required to release bromine are much higher [0012-0013].
In the light of the teachings of Lyman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize brominated flame retardants having higher bromine content in the teachings of DeSchriver and thereby obtain molded article with good heat distortion where temperatures at which bromine is release are higher.
With respect to the thermoplastic polymers, DeSchriver teaches use of polyamides and polyester blend with polyolefin, which is not the same as flame retarded polyolefin.
Thomas expands on the teachings of DeSchriver by listing several different types of matrix polymers that can be used with brominated styrenic flame retardants. Starting [0037] polyolefin homopolymers and copolymers. Examples given are polyethylene, polypropylene as well as ethylene/propylene copolymers. Narrower scope of the matrix polymers include polystyrenes and polyolefins [0042].
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention, to utilize polyolefins disclosed by DeSchriver as a matrix polymer as shown in Thomas. Thomas clearly establishes that polyolefins can be flame retarded by brominated styrene polymers having high bromine content. Similarly, to other polymers brominated styrenic flame retardants will reduce or even eliminate thermal degradation of polyolefins, which is the same effect that these flame retardants have on polymers of DeSchriver. Additionally use of polyolefins is already contemplated by DeSchriver consequently utilizing polyolefins will result article having polymers having good compatibility (better than polyamide or polyester blend with polyolefins which lack polarity).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights