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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I comprising the species per Example 2 in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 44-58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 18, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, do Applicants intend Cu2O instead of “CU2O”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-18 and 21-43 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 1, the basis upon which the recited contents were determined (e.g., based on total composition or based on the sum of the recited components) is not apparent.
In claim 22, there is no express antecedent basis for “the halogen content of the flame retardant system”.
In claim 24, the phrases “may contain” and "example of functional groups" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 27, it is unclear how the phosphorous-containing antioxidant distinguishes over the organophosphorous compound flame retardant per claim 1. Notably, an aluminum phosphinate flame retardant can also act as an antioxidant.
In claim 31, there is no express antecedent basis for “the phosphorous-containing antioxidant” per claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-18, 21-23, 27, 32, 36, 37 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by US 2012/0208937 (Prusty).
Prusty discloses a polymer composition comprising:
10 to 98 wt.% polyamide (meets Applicants’ polyamide and overlaps content thereof);
0.001 to 20 wt.% iron powder (meets Applicants’ additional inorganic compound per claim 21);
1 to 40 wt.% halogen-free flame retardant inclusive of phosphorous compounds (meets Applicants’ organophosphorous flame retardant compound and overlaps content thereof);
D1) 0 to 70 wt.% of fibrous fillers [0147] (meets Applicants’ inorganic fibers and overlaps content thereof);
D2) 0.05 to 3 wt.% lubricants [0160] (meets Applicants’ additional lubricant per claim 32 and content thereof);
D3) 0.05 to 3 wt.% copper stabilizer [0169] (meets Applicants’ copper heat stabilizer compound and overlaps content thereof) (e.g., abstract, [0001-0005], [0095], [0147], [0160], [0169], examples, Tables 1 and 2, claims).
As to claim 1, Prusty sets forth Example 3 (Tables 1 and 2) a polymer composition comprising:
A/1) 53.3 wt.% nylon 66 [0244-0245] (meets Applicants’ polyamide and content thereof);
B/1) 1 wt.% iron powder [0246-0247] (meets Applicants’ additional inorganic compound per claim 21);
C) 20 wt.% flame retardant Exolit OP 1312 [0253-0254] which is the same flame retardant system used in the present examples [0070] comprising aluminum diethylphosphinate (meets Applicants’ organophosphorous flame retardant compound and content thereof), melamine polyphosphate (meets Applicants’ additional organophosphorous synergist per claim 16) and zinc borate (meets Applicants’ additional inorganic compound per claim 21);
D/1) 25 wt.% of glass fibers [0255-0256] (meets Applicants’ inorganic fibers and content thereof);
D/2) 0.2 wt.% Al di/tristearates lubricants [0257-0258] (meets Applicants’ additional lubricant per claim 32 and content thereof);
D/31) 0.3 wt.% CuI/KI stabilizer [059-0260] (meets Applicants’ copper heat stabilizer compound and content thereof); and
D/32) 0.2 wt.% Irganox 1098 antioxidant [0261-0262] (meets Applicants’ additional hindered amine light stabilizer per claim 23),
wherein (in accordance with ISO 527 [0265] per Table 2) the polymer composition has a ratio of aged tensile strength (79) to initial strength (135) of about 0.59 (meets Applicants’ tensile strength ratio of about 0.5 or more).
As to claims 2 and 3, Prusty’s examples use CuI.
As to claim 5, Prusty’s heat stabilizer further includes the halogen-containing synergist KI.
As to claims 10 and 11, Prusty’s examples use the aliphatic polyamide nylon 66.
As to claim 12, Prusty’s examples use glass fibers.
As to claims 13-15, Prusty’s examples use aluminum diethylphosphinate (meets Applicants’ formula (I) wherein R7 and R8 are straight C2 chains, m is 2 and Z is Al).
As to claims 16-18, Prusty’s examples use the azine phosphate salt melamine polyphosphate synergist.
As to claims 21, Prusty’s examples use iron powder and zinc borate.
As to claim 22, inasmuch as Prusty’s flame retardant system does not include halogenated compounds, such would necessarily have a halogen content of 1,000 parts by million or less.
As to claim 23, Prusty’s examples use the hindered amine Irganox 1098 (N,N’-hexamethylene-bis-3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamide) [0182].
As to claim 27, Prusty’s examples use aluminum diethylphosphinate and melamine polyphosphate.
As to claim 32, Prusty’s examples use Al di/tristearates lubricants.
As to claim 36, in Prusty’s Example 3 the weight ratio of the 0.3 wt.% CuI/KI heat stabilizer to 0.2 wt.% Al di/tristearates lubricants (0.3/0.2 =1.5) meets Applicants’ corresponding weight ratio.
As to claim 37, Prusty’s Example 3 includes a hindered amine stabilizer Irganox 1098 and aluminum diethylphosphinate/melamine polyphosphate.
As to claim 41, Prusty’s Example 3 exhibits a VO rating (Table 3).
As to claims 42 and 43, Prusty’s Example 3 composition precisely meets the presently claimed requirements in terms of materials, contents thereof and tensile strength properties and, as such, it would be expected that such would necessarily be governed by the same properties inclusive of similar comparative tracking index and Charpy noticed impact strength. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties” because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, MPEP 2112.01 (II). Where the claimed and prior products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best 195 USPQ 430. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed, a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate (MPEP 2112).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0208937 (Prusty) described hereabove in view of US 2019/0292366 (Bienmueller).
Prusty discloses the use of a halogen-containing synergist KI, but does not expressly set forth a halogen-containing aromatic polymer. Bienmueller teaches that brominated aromatic polymers, such as brominated polystyrene, can be added to flame retardant polyamide compositions comprising aluminum phosphinates as long as the disadvantages associated with halogen flame retardants are accounted for [0184-0185]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further use a small content of a brominated aromatic polymer in Prusty’s polyamide composition for its expected flame retardant effect and with the reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0208937 (Prusty) described hereabove in view of US 2020/0308402 (White).
As to claims 24-26, Prusty does not expressly disclose piperidine-based hindered amine stabilizers having the claimed structures. White, however, discloses that piperidine-based hindered amine stabilizers such as NYLOSTAB S-EED (N,N’-bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-1,3-benzenecarboxamide) [0044] are known functional alternatives to hindered phenolic stabilizers such as Prusty’s Irganox 1098 [0048] for similarly-constituted flame retardant polyamide compositions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a piperidine-based hindered amine stabilizer (e.g., NYLOSTAB S-EED ) either in place of or in addition to Prusty’s exemplified Irganox 1098 for its expected stabilizing effect.
Claims 28-31, 37, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0208937 (Prusty) described hereabove in view of TW 1640572 B (Mii) abstract and machine translation.
As to claims 28-31 and 37, Prusty discloses the polymer composition can further contain additional phosphite stabilizers [0232], but does not expressly disclose those presently claimed. From Mii, it is known that flame retardant polyamide compositions comprising a metal phosphinate, such as aluminum diethylphosphinate, can additionally include a phosphorus-based antioxidant such as HOSTANOX P-EPQ (i.e., Applicants’ tetrakis(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)4,4’-biphenylene diphosphonate per [0070] which meets presently claimed formula (1) wherein R is a biphenyl radical, R1 is a compound of structure (II), n is 2 and m is 4) to further improve the flame retardancy (e.g., [0088], Table 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to further include a phosphorus-based antioxidant such as HOSTANOX P-EPQ in Prusty’s polyamide composition to further improve the flame retardancy.
As to claim 38, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the weight ratio of the copper compound heat stabilizer to additional phosphorous-based antioxidant (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the desired heat resistance and stability, absent a showing of criticality for claimed weight ratio.
As to claim 40, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the weight ratio of the hindered amine stabilizer to additional phosphorous-based antioxidant (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the desired stability, absent a showing of criticality for claimed weight ratio.
Claims 33-35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0208937 (Prusty) described hereabove.
As to claims 33-35, while not used in the examples, it is within the purview of Prusty’s inventive disclosure [0165], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to alternatively use a salt or ester of montanic acid as the lubricant (meeting the claimed limitations) with the reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 39, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the weight ratio of the copper compound heat stabilizer to hinder amine stabilizer (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the desired heat resistance and stability, absent a showing of criticality for claimed weight ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765