DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on February 12, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 14-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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 § 112
Claims 2, 5, 9-10 and 15 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.
In claim 2, applicants claim the composition as further comprising 35-75 wt% of a second poly(phenylene ether) having an intrinsic viscosity of greater than 0.25 deciliters/gram; however, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, already claims the composition as comprising 35-70 wt% of a second poly(phenylene ether).
It is unclear as to whether the second poly(phenylene ether) of claim 1 is the same as that of claim 2, or different. It is also unclear as to whether the second poly(phenylene ether) is present in an amount of 35-70 wt%, as in claim 1, or 35-75 wt% as in claim 2.
In claim 9, applicants claim the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block reaction product in an amount of 75-89.5 wt%; however, claim 1 from which it depends, claims the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block reaction product in an amount of only 5-54.5 wt%. Therefore, the scope of claim 9 is indefinite.
In claim 5, applicants claim “the organophosphate ester flame retardant is selected from the group comprising resorcinol bis-diphenyl phosphate, bis-phenol A bis-diphenyl phosphate…or a combination thereof.”
In claims 9-10 and 15, applicants claim “the organophosphate ester flame retardant is selected from the group comprising resorcinol bis-diphenyl phosphate, bis-phenol A bis-diphenyl phosphate, or a combination thereof.”
A list of specified alternatives is defined as a Markush group. A Markush group is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group comprising” or the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as “at least one member” selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as “or mixtures thereof”). See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler (US 2014/0045979).
Ziegler teaches a composition comprising the following (p. 1, [0008]):
68-84 wt% of a poly(phenylene ether) with an intrinsic viscosity of 0.35-0.6 deciliter per gram (p. 2, [0010]);
6-16 wt% of a hydrogenated block copolymer of an alkenyl aromatic compound and a conjugated diene, preferably a polystyrene poly(ethylene-butylene)-polystyrene triblock copolymer (p. 4, [0023]);
10-16 wt% of an organophosphate ester flame retardant, preferably bisphenol A bis(diphenyl phosphate) (p. 4, [0027]);
1-5 wt% tricalcium phosphate (p. 7, [0049]); and
up to 5 wt% poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block reaction product comprising both the poly(arylene ether) and the poly(arylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer (p. 7, [0054]).
These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
For example, choosing a composition comprising 70 wt% poly(phenylene ether), 6-10 wt% hydrogenated block copolymer, 10-15 wt% organophosphate flame retardant, 1-5 wt% tricalcium phosphate and 5 wt% of the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block reaction product is prima facie obvious based on the teachings of Ziegler and meets the claimed composition.
Ziegler is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-10.
As to claim 3, Ziegler teaches the HDT of at least 115°C, an notched Izod impact strength of 400 J/m and a flame retardancy of V-0 at a thickness of 1 mm (p. 15, [0105])
As to claim 6, Ziegler teaches that the composition can include less than 2 wt% of homopolystyrenes and impact polystyrenes (p. 5, [0034]).
As to claim 7, Ziegler teaches that the composition excludes reinforcing fillers, which include glass fibers (p. 6, [0040]-[0041]).
As to claim 8, Ziegler teaches the inclusion of 0.1-10 wt% of additives (p. 7, [0052]).
As to claim 11, Ziegler teaches melt blending the components (p. 9, [0067]-[0068]).
As to claim 12, Ziegler teaches preparing molded articles from the composition (p. 10, [0072]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler (US 2014/0045979) in view of Zhou (US 2019/0345329) and/or Sato (9,193,868).
Ziegler is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-8 and 10-12, as described above and applied herein as such, as Ziegler teaches a composition comprising the claimed components in overlapping ranges.
Ziegler teaches that the compositions are suitable for use as photovoltaic junction boxes; however, does not specifically teach the compositions as suitable for use as a battery insulation film, as claimed.
Zhou teaches a sheet comprising polyphenylene ether, a hydrogenated block copolymer, and organophosphate flame retardant which can be molded into an article suitable for use in photovoltaic modules, heat shielding applications, such as power supply housing, battery insulation, printed circuit board insulation, etc. (p. 7, [0054]).
Sato teaches articles having flame retardancy and heat resistance comprising poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer reaction product, an optional second poly(phenylene ether), an organophosphate flame retardant, a hydrogenated block copolymer, teaching that these compositions can be molded into articles which are suitable for use in battery parts for hybrid and electric vehicles and electric vehicle junction boxes (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the composition of Ziegler as a battery insulation film in electric vehicles, which have battery packs, as Ziegler teaches that the compositions are suitable for use as photovoltaic junction boxes, and Zhou and Sato teach similar compositions which are suitable for use as battery insulation sheets in addition to power supply housings, EV junction boxes.
Ziegler in view of Zhou and/or Sato is prima facie obvious over instant claims 13-15.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 9,193,868) in view of Landa (US 2009/0082497), and further in view of Peacock (US 2014/0275346).
Sato teaches an article exhibiting flame retardancy and heat resistance comprising the following (col. 1, ll. 40-62):
0.5-85 wt% of a poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer reaction product comprising a poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer and a poly(phenylene ether) (col. 2, ll. 59-67);
5-25 w% of an organophosphate flame retardant, specifically listed to include resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate), bisphenol A dis(diphenyl phosphate), and triphenyl phosphate (col. 13, ll. 37-53);
10-35 wt% reinforcing filler; and
1-10 wt% of an impact modifier, preferably a polystyrene-poly(ethylene-butylene)-polystyrene triblock copolymer (col. 20, ll. 25-32), which is a known hydrogenated styrene-butadiene copolymer;
teaching that when the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer reaction product is less than 50 wt%, a second poly(phenylene ether) can be beneficially added (col. 12, ll. 42-45), where the second poly(phenylene ether) has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.25-0.35 deciliters/gram (col. 13, ll. 19-32), teaching a combination of 55-75 wt% of the second poly(phenylene ether), 2-10 wt% of the poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block copolymer reaction product and 1-5 wt% of hydrogenated block copolymer of an alkenyl aromatic compound and a conjugated diene (col. 22, ll. 47-58).
Sato does not teach or suggest the inclusion of the tricalcium phosphate, as claimed.
Landa teaches thermoplastic poly(arylene ether) resin compositions comprising an organophosphate flame retardant and 1-8 wt% tricalcium phosphate (Abstract). Landa teaches that poly(arylene ether)s have unique property combination such as high temperature resistance, dimensional and hydrolytic stability, and electrical properties (p. 1, [0002]). Landa teaches that there is a need for compositions having a high CTI (comparative tracking index) for use in items such as electronic connectors, housings, and mini-circuit boards (p. 1, [0021]). Landa teaches that surprisingly, the inclusion of tricalcium phosphate yields compositions with markedly higher CTI values than comparable compositions free thereof (p. 1, [0022]).
Peacock teaches that electrical and electronic parts, especially fully electric and hybrid vehicles, should also have enhanced resistance to tracking (p. 11 , [0158]).
Sato teaches the compositions as suitable for being formed into single layer and multilayer sheets, where the articles formed from the composition can include fuser holder, battery part for hybrid and electric vehicles, or an electric junction box (col. 24, ll. 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added 1-8 wt% tricalcium phosphate to the composition of Sato, as Sato teaches preparing molded articles from the composition to include battery part for hybrid and electric vehicles, Peacock teaches that electrical and electronic parts used in hybrid and electric vehicles should have enhanced resistance to tracking, and Landa teaches that the addition of 1-8 wt% tricalcium phosphate to a similar poly(phenylene ether) composition can provide markedly high CTI values.
Sato in view of Landa and Peacock is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10.
As to claim 3, Sato teaches the articles prepared from the composition as having a high heat resistance, represented by a heat deflection temperature of 110-180°C (col. 2, ll. 4-10).
As to claim 6, Sato teaches high impact polystyrenes as alternative impact modifiers, and are therefore not required by the invention of Sato.
As to claim 7, Sato teaches that glass fibers are an optional reinforcing filler (col. 22, ll. 53-55).
As to claim 8, Sato teaches that a number of possible additives can be added in an amount of 5 wt% or less (col. 22, ll. 11-23).
As to claim 11, Sato exemplifies melt blending the components followed by extrusion (col. ll. 31, ll. 17-28).
As to claims 12-15, Sato teaches the compositions as suitable for being formed into single layer and multilayer sheets, where the articles formed from the composition can include fuser holder, battery part for hybrid and electric vehicles, or an electric junction box (col. 24, ll. 58-67). Sato teaches that poly(phenylene ethers) are insulation of wires and cables; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a sheet formed from the composition of Sato in view of Landa to be suitable for use as insulation in a battery part for electric vehicles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Ziegler discloses using up to 5 wt% of a PPE-polysiloxane reaction product, and does not teach or suggest elevating the reaction product beyond 5 wt%, further arguing that Ziegler does not disclose the two PPE components now recited.
While the examiner agrees that Ziegler teaches the amount of PPE-polysiloxane reaction product in an amount of up to 5 wt%, which includes the end point of 5 wt%, which is similarly claimed. Therefore, the claimed ranges overlap with that suggested by Ziegler.
Ziegler teaches the composition as comprising 68-84 wt% of a poly(phenylene ether) with an intrinsic viscosity of 0.35-0.6 deciliter per gram, which meets applicants’ second poly(phenylene ether) and up to 5 wt% poly(phenylene ether)-polysiloxane block reaction product; therefore, Ziegler teaches both of the claimed PPE components.
Applicants argue that Sato broadly lists ranges for the PPE-siloxane reaction product and for organophosphates.
While these ranges may be broad, they still encompass the claimed subject matter, and applicants have not shown any surprising or unexpected results when using the claimed composition over the broadly suggested composition of Sato in view of Landa and Peacock.
Conclusion
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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (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 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766