CTNF 18/023,847 CTNF 78545 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or 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. 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, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2018/0112096, of record) and further in view of Komer (US 10,236,095, newly cited) . Shimada ‘096 is directed to a flame resistant composition for electric wires in a wire harness and comprising a silane grafted polyolefin A, an unmodified polyolefin B, a modified polyolefin C formed with, for example, an acid anhydride group or an amino group, a flame retardant D, and a crosslinking catalyst or silanol condensation catalyst (part of batch E) (Abstract and Paragraphs 2 and 87). Shimada ‘096 further states that polyolefin A has a flexural modulus as small as 3 MPa (Paragraph 24) and polyolefin B has a flexural modulus as small as 10 MPa (Paragraph 25). Given that polyolefin A can constitute as large as 90 parts by mass of the total mass of polyolefins A, B, and C (Paragraph 79), it reasons that an overall flexural modulus of the flame resistant composition would be less than 80 MPa. Lastly, regarding claim 1, the flame retardant composition is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention and as such, it reasons that Shimada ‘096 encompasses compositions having a melting point of at least 80°C. It is emphasized that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to appropriately select the melting point as a function of the specific application, it being well recognized that desired melting points are a direct function of the specific application, as shown for example by Komer (Column 4, Lines 35-45). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the flame retardant composition of Shimada ‘096 with a melting point of at least 80°C (such melting points are consistent with those associated with applications involving insulated wires). Regarding claim 5, unmodified polyolefin B of Shimada ‘096 has a preferred density between 0.885 and 0.955 g/cm3 (Paragraph 69) and a flexural modulus between 10 and 1,000 MPa, with PE1 and PE2 in Table 2 satisfying the claimed invention. As to claim 6, silane grafted polyolefin A has a loading between 30 and 90 parts by mass, unmodified polyolefin B has a loading between approximately 5 and 67 parts by mass, and modified polyolefin C has a loading between approximately 0.5 and 35 parts by mass (Paragraph 79). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the composition of Shimada ‘096 in accordance to the claimed invention given the significant overlap in loadings for components A-C. With respect to claim 9, the crosslinking catalyst or silanol condensation catalyst has a loading (individually) between approximately 0.01 and 1 part by mass of the overall composition (Paragraphs 89 and 90) and such fully encompasses the claimed range. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the composition of Shimada ‘096 includes 1-10 part by mass of a hindered phenol based antioxidant, 1-15 parts by mass of an imidazole-based compounds modified with a mercapto group, and 1-10 parts by mass of a lubricant (Paragraphs 94, 96, and 99) . 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim (s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada ‘096 and Komer as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ryu (US 2018/0286535, of record) . As detailed above, Shimada ‘096 is directed to an insulating composition comprising a silane modified polyolefin (Paragraphs 47 and 48). Shimada ‘096 further states that a plurality of polyolefins can be used, wherein said polyolefins have a density as small as 0.855 g/cm 3 and a flexural modulus as small as 3 MPa. In such an instance, though, Shimada ‘096 is silent with respect to the melting points of respective polyolefins. Ryu is similarly directed to an insulating composition comprising at least 2 olefin resins (Paragraphs 78 and 79). More particularly, Ryu teaches the including of olefin resins having different melting points in order to optimize installation performance and flame resistance . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use first and second silane modified olefins having different melting points in the composition of Shimada ‘096 for the benefits detailed above. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ryu describes a first polyolefin resin having a melting point between 90°C and 170°C and a second polyolefin resin having a melting point between 50°C and 80°C (Paragraph 84). Ryu also teaches that a ratio between said first polyolefin resin and said second polyolefin resin is 2:8 to 6:4 and such overlaps with the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an insulating composition of Shimada ‘096 with the claimed combination of loadings and properties . 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim (s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada ‘096 and Komer as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Castellani (US 6,162,548, newly cited) . As detailed above, Shimada ‘096 is directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a plurality of polyolefin components. Shimada ‘096 further teaches the inclusion of up to 30 parts by mass of an inorganic filler, such as magnesium oxide and calcium carbonate (Paragraph 106). While Shimada ‘096 fails to expressly list magnesium hydroxide, such is well recognized as being consistent with the common disclosure of inorganic fillers in insulating compositions, as shown for example by Castellani (Abstract and Column 5, Lines 45-67). Castellani discloses the general class of metal oxides, as well as most preferred hydroxides, having a preferred particle size between 0.5 microns and 10 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select magnesium hydroxide as the disclosed inorganic filler in Shimada ‘096 absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (disclosed alternatively as suitable inorganic fillers in insulating compositions) . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim (s) 1, 5-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2012/0273268, of record) and further in view of Shimada ‘096 and Komer . Shimada ‘268 is directed to a flame resistant composition for electric wires in a wire harness and comprising a silane grafted polyolefin, an unmodified polyolefin , a modified polyolefin formed with, for example, an acid anhydride group or an amino group, a flame retardant, and a crosslinking catalyst or silanol condensation catalyst (Abstract). In such an instance, though, Shimada ‘268 is silent with respect to (a) the flexural modulus of the composition and (b) the melting point of the composition. Regarding (a), small modulus values are commonly associated with polyolefins used in extremely similar insulating compositions, as shown for example by Shimada ‘096 (Paragraphs 24 and 25) Given that the flexural modulus can be less than 10 MPa for respective polyolefin components, it reasons that a flexural modulus of the overall composition would be less than 80 MPa. It is emphasized that Shimada ‘268 is seen to encompass insulating compositions having a wide variety of flexural modulus values, including those required by the claimed invention, and it is well recognized that insulating composition properties can be selected as a function of the intended application. Lastly, regarding claim 1, the flame retardant composition of Shimada ‘268 as modified by Shimada ‘096 is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention and as such, it reasons that Shimada ‘268 encompasses compositions having a melting point of at least 80°C. It is emphasized that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to appropriately select the melting point as a function of the specific application, it being well recognized that desired melting points are a direct function of the specific application, as shown for example by Komer (Column 4, Lines 35-45). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the flame retardant composition of Shimada ‘268 with a melting point of at least 80°C (such melting points are consistent with those associated with applications involving insulated wires). Regarding claim 5, Shimada ‘096 teaches preferred densities between 0.885 and 0.955 g/cm3 (Paragraph 69) and a flexural modulus between 10 and 1,000 MPa, with PE1 and PE2 in Table 2 satisfying the claimed invention, for an unmodified polyolefin. As to claim 6, the silane grafted polyolefin in Shimada ‘268 has a loading between 30 and 90 parts by mass, the unmodified polyolefin has a loading between approximately 5 and 67 parts by mass, and the modified polyolefin has a loading between approximately 0.5 and 35 parts by mass (Paragraphs 30-34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the composition of Shimada ‘268 in accordance to the claimed invention given the significant overlap in loadings for the polyolefin components. Regarding claim 7, the composition of Shimada ‘268 can include up to 30 phr of magnesium hydroxide (Paragraph 68) With respect to claim 9, the crosslinking catalyst or silanol condensation catalyst has a loading between 0.5 and 5 parts by mass (Paragraph 59). Regarding claims 10-12, the composition of Shimada ‘268 includes 0.5-5 parts by mass of a hindered phenol based antioxidant, 1-20 parts by mass of a combination of zinc oxide and an imidazole compound, and 0-5 parts by mass of a lubricant (Paragraphs 60, 65, and 69) . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada ‘268, Shimada ‘096, and Komer as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ryu . As detailed above, Shimada ‘268 is directed to an insulating composition comprising a silane modified polyolefin (Paragraph 35). Shimada ‘268 further states that a plurality of polyolefins can be used (Paragraph 36), with Shimada ‘096 evidencing the common densities and flexural modulus values associated with polyolefins in an extremely similar insulating composition (silane grafted polyolefin component). In such an instance, though, Shimada ‘268 is silent with respect to the melting points of respective polyolefins. Ryu is similarly directed to an insulating composition comprising at least 2 olefin resins (Paragraphs 78 and 79). More particularly, Ryu teaches the including of olefin resins having different melting points in order to optimize installation performance and flame resistance. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use first and second silane modified olefins having different melting points in the composition of Shimada ‘268 for the benefits detailed above. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ryu describes a first polyolefin resin having a melting point between 90°C and 170°C and a second polyolefin resin having a melting point between 50°C and 80°C (Paragraph 84). Ryu also teaches that a ratio between said first polyolefin resin and said second polyolefin resin is 2:8 to 6:4 and such overlaps with the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an insulating composition of Shimada ‘268 with the claimed combination of loadings and properties (not required for Ryu to disclose the entirety of the . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada ‘268, Shimada ‘096, and Komer as applied in claim 7 above and further in view of Castellani . As detailed above, Shimada ‘268 is directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a plurality of polyolefin components. Shimada ‘268 further teaches the inclusion of up to 30 parts by mass of an inorganic filler, such as magnesium hydroxide. While Shimada ‘268 fails to expressly disclose particle sizes for magnesium hydroxide, the claimed range of particle sizes is consistent with common inorganic fillers, such as magnesium hydroxide, used in insulating compositions, as shown for example by Castellani (Abstract and Column 5, Lines 45-67). Castellani discloses the general class of metal oxides, as well as most preferred hydroxides, having a preferred particle size between 0.5 microns and 10 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select particle sizes between 0.5 microns and 5 microns in Shimada ‘268 absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (claimed range is fully encompassed by the disclosed range of Castellani) . Response to Arguments 07-38-02 AIA 9. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11 , filed June 8, 2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shimada ‘096 and Shimada ‘268 . Conclusion 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215 . The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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. Justin Fischer /JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 12, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 7 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 8 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 9 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/023,847 Page 10 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights