DETAILED ACTION
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 15-28 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.
Claim 15 recites “the polymer(s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 15 and all dependent claims are indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “the group(s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that this be amended to recite either “the reactive groups”, “amine groups”, “hydroxyl groups”, or “the at least one group”.
Claims 18 recites “the polymer(s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that this be amended to recite “the at least one polymer”.
Claims 18-20, 27-28 recite “the flame retardant compound(s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that this be amended to recite “the flame retardant compound”.
Claim 20 teaches chloride compounds comprising at least one -PS- group. It is unclear what is included in the scope of “-PS-”. For example “-PS-” could mean polystyrene or “-PS-” could mean a phosphorus-sulfur group.
Claims 21-22 recite “the chloride compounds comprising at least one -SO2- group”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that this be amended to recite “the chloride compounds comprising an -SO2- group”.
Claim 28 recites “the reactor” in lines 3 and 5. There is no antecedent basis for this term. It is suggested that ‘the reactor’ be replaced with ‘the first reactor’.
Claim 28 recites “the temperature” and “the pressure”. There are no antecedent basis for these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirsch (US 3,549,307).
Hirsch teaches a process of converting articles derived from polyamides into fireproof products (abstract) and provides examples where a polyamide tape is treated with gaseous sulfur monochloride, trichloromethane sulfenyl chloride, and phosphorous pentachloride (col. 7-8, claim 10). Hirsch teaches the polyamide is partially dehydrogenated (col. 2, ln. 5-30) and the heteroatoms of the oxidant are incorporated into the polymer (col. 4, ln. 16-30). The reaction described by Hirsh falls in the scope of the claimed nucleophilic addition with the amine groups.
Hirsch teaches the polyamide PAP is placed in a reactor, and liquid reactant is vaporized with nitrogen and passed over the polyamide at an elevated temperature (col. 7, ln. 25-42). Passing the nitrogen flow corresponds to the claimed pressuring step.
The limitation “for chemically modifiying a polymeric part in order to impart flame retardant properties thereto” is a statement of intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jama, American Chemical Society, September 15, 2001, Vol. 797, pp. 200-213 (provided on the 2/9/2023 IDS).
Jama teaches treatment of polyamide 6 with tetramethyldisiloxane plasma (pg. 202) thereby increasing the fire retardancy (abstract). Jama teaches heating and pressurizing the polyamide followed by addition of the gaseous TMDS being injected from a separate zone (pg. 202). The resulting reaction is a nucleophilic addition or substitution.
The limitation “for chemically modifiying a polymeric part in order to impart flame retardant properties thereto” is a statement of intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 103469589)
Yu teaches a process where metalated Kevlar 29 is placed in a sealed container filled with epoxy resin solvent, the air is removed and filed with CO2 at 80˚C, to give a modified Kevlar 29 fiber (¶ 28-33) where the epoxy resin solvent molecules are gaseous under reaction conditions (¶ 14, 19). Kevlar is an aramid (¶ 16) which is a polyamide. The metallization of the aramid refers to the reaction with the secondary hydrogen on the amide chain (¶ 29) and subsequent reaction corresponds to a nucleophilic substitution or addition. Epoxy resins contain at least one pendant oxygen atom.
The limitation “for chemically modifiying a polymeric part in order to impart flame retardant properties thereto” is a statement of intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalaby (US 5,491,198).
Shalaby teaches films of nylon 12 are phosphonylated (col. 9, ln. 30-50). Shalaby teaches the phosphonylation occurs in the gas phase by substituting a hydrogen atom (col. 6, ln. 20-41) which corresponds to the claimed nucleophilic substitution. Phosphonylation results in a -PO group (col. 6, ln. 12-20).
Shalaby does not explicitly recite an example where nylon 12 undergoes gas phase phosphonylation. However, Shalaby teaches examples where polyethylene, PEEK, and polypropylene undergo gas phase phosphonylation (col. 10-12), and where nylon 12 undergoes liquid phase phosphonylation (col. 9, ln. 30-50). It would have been obvious to use nylon 12 because Shalaby teaches nylon 12 is a suitable polymeric surface (col. 4, ln. 50-52) and it would have been obvious to use gas phase phosphonylation because Shalaby teaches gas phase phosphonylation is a suitable method for phosphonylating a substrate (col. 6, ln. 20-29).
The limitation “for chemically modifiying a polymeric part in order to impart flame retardant properties thereto” is a statement of intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art rejections are presented over claims 20-25 and 27. It is noted that these claims are rejected above.
Claim 20 recites the flame retardant is a nucleophilic substitution and the flame retardant compound is selected from chloride compounds comprising an -SO2- group, chloride compounds comprising an -PO- group, and chloride compounds comprising an -PS- group.
The prior art discussed above fail to teach chloride compounds containing an -SO2- group or -PO- group.
Claim 27 recites the reaction step is implemented exclusively in the presence of the polymeric part and the flame retardant compound. The prior art reactions include additional components such as nitrogen gas or oxygen gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764