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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 15 in the reply filed on 18 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 November 2025.
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 1-11 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 1 (from which claims 2-11 depend) recites “wherein a tensile strength is . . .” without reciting what material exhibits the recited tensile strength (such as, the composition, the polypropylene resin, etc.). Likewise, claims 8-11 recite physical properties without specifying the material to which they apply.
For the purposes of applying prior art, it will be presumed that each of these refers to a property of the flame retardant plastic material composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-277530 A (“Watanabe”) in view of US 2004/0010070 (“Sato”) as evidenced by US 6,565,348 (“Snijder”).
A partial machine translation of JP 2007-277530 A is enclosed.
As to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a flame retardant plastic material composition (para. 0001). Watanabe teaches polypropylene resin (para. 0012), magnesium hydroxide (para. 0012), and a clay mineral (para. 0012), where the clay mineral may be talc (para. 0030). Watanabe teaches an elastomer (rubber) (para. 0012), and a modified polyolefin (para. 0012). While Watanabe does not discuss a coupling agent, Watanabe teaches the modified polyolefin is an unsaturated acid modified polyolefin such as maleic anhydride modified polyolefin (para. 0026). It is known, as evidenced by Snijder, 4:59-64, that maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene is a coupling agent for polypropylene.
While the specific amounts of magnesium hydroxide and clay mineral (such as talc) are not exemplified, Watanabe teaches the use of preferably 60 to 120 parts of magnesium hydroxide to 100 parts resin or providing flame retardancy while maintaining mechanical properties and cold resistance (para. 0037), and 1 to 20 parts by mass of the clay mineral to 100 parts resin for providing abrasion resistance while maintaining mechanical properties (para. 0038). The office calculates that this works out to approximately 33 to 54 wt percent magnesium hydroxide and 1 to 11 wt % talc, which substantially overlap the recited ranges. Thus, the use of the amounts of magnesium hydroxide and clay mineral (talc), including in the recited range, is suggested by Watanabe for providing flame retardance and absorbance while maintaining mechanical properties.
While not exemplified with the specific amounts, Watanabe teaches compositions having tensile strength in the range of 27 to 30 MPa (Table 2), approximately 270 to 300 kgf/cm2, which is well within the recited range.
Watanabe teaches the composition may include additional flame retardant aids, but does not discuss melamine resin. However, it is well known to use melamine cyanurate in conjunction with metal hydroxides for flame retardant purposes in polyolefins, as known from Sato, para. 0008. As such, the use of melamine cyanurate as a flame retardant aid is an obvious modification suggested by Sato.
As to claim 4, Watanabe teaches the recited types of polypropylene (para. 0017), preferably teaches uncoated magnesium hydroxide (para. 0028). As discussed with respect to claim 1, melamine cyanurate is a known flame retardant aid used in polyolefin compositions, and is therefore an obvious modification as suggested by Sato.
As to claim 6, Watanabe teaches the use of magnesium hydroxide in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 micrometer in particle diameter (para. 0029), which is within the recited range. Watanabe further teaches the clay mineral (which mat be talc) has a preferable particle diameter of 1 to 2 micrometers (para. 0030) for abrasion resistance.
As to claim 7, Watanabe teaches SBS, SEBS copolymers may be used (para. 0023).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-277530 A (“Watanabe”) in view of US 2004/0010070 (“Sato”) as evidenced by US 6,565,348 (“Snijder”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2018/0265683 (“Shimizu”).
As to claim 3, Watanabe teaches the use of antioxidant (para. 0039), but does not teach the recited amount. Shimizu teaches flame retardant polyolefin resins, and teaches the use of antioxidants, preferably in amounts from 0.05 to 5 parts of a polyolefin composition (paras. 0063, 0067), which includes the recited range. It would be an obvious modification to use antioxidants, including in the recited range, to slow deterioration of the resin composition.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-277530 A (“Watanabe”) in view of US 2004/0010070 (“Sato”) as evidenced by US 6,565,348 (“Snijder”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of JP 2013-006995 A (“Nishiguchi”).
A partial machine translation of JP 2013-006995 A is enclosed.
As to claim 5, Watanabe does not teach the recited melt index. Nishiguchi teaches flame retardant polypropylene compositions for wire and cable and other applications (para. 0002), and teaches a melt flow rate (melt index) in the range of 0.1-60 g/10 min (para. 0018) for providing mechanical strength (para. 0018), which overlaps the recited range. As such, Nishiguchi teaches melt index in the recited range is an appropriate range for flame retardant polypropylene compositions.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-277530 A (“Watanabe”) in view of US 2004/0010070 (“Sato”) and US 2018/0048055 (“O’Driscoll”) as evidenced by US 6,565,348 (“Snijder”).
As to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a flame retardant plastic material composition (para. 0001). Watanabe teaches polypropylene resin (para. 0012), magnesium hydroxide (para. 0012), and a clay mineral (para. 0012), where the clay mineral may be talc (para. 0030). Watanabe teaches an elastomer (rubber) (para. 0012), and a modified polyolefin (para. 0012). While Watanabe does not discuss a coupling agent, Watanabe teaches the modified polyolefin is an unsaturated acid modified polyolefin such as maleic anhydride modified polyolefin (para. 0026). It is known, as evidenced by Snijder, 4:59-64, that maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene is a coupling agent for polypropylene.
While the specific amounts of magnesium hydroxide and clay mineral (such as talc) are not exemplified, Watanabe teaches the use of preferably 60 to 120 parts of magnesium hydroxide to 100 parts resin or providing flame retardancy while maintaining mechanical properties and cold resistance (para. 0037), and 1 to 20 parts by mass of the clay mineral to 100 parts resin for providing abrasion resistance while maintaining mechanical properties (para. 0038). The office calculates that this works out to approximately 33 to 54 wt percent magnesium hydroxide and 1 to 11 wt % talc, which substantially overlap the recited ranges. Thus, the use of the amounts of magnesium hydroxide and clay mineral (talc), including in the recited range, is suggested by Watanabe for providing flame retardance and absorbance while maintaining mechanical properties.
Watanabe teaches the composition may include additional flame retardant aids, but does not discuss melamine resin. However, it is well known to use melamine cyanurate in conjunction with metal hydroxides for flame retardant purposes in polyolefins, as known from Sato, para. 0008. As such, the use of melamine cyanurate as a flame retardant aid is an obvious modification suggested by Sato.
Watanabe suggests the use of polyolefin compositions as resin molded articles (para. 0046), including a box, but does not teach a home appliance having a PCB and housing. O’Driscoll teaches a wearable monitoring device (para. 0004), an appliance, having a PCB housing, and teaches that the housing may be polypropylene (para. 0026), which suggests the polypropylene composition is useful for PCB housing. While not recited as a home appliance, a monitoring device is presumed capable of use in such a setting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not suggest the recited composition in conjunction with the recited tensile strength; in particular, Braga (US 6,673,855) teaches polypropylene compositions having similar material compositions as claim 2, but does not provide guidance to the recited composition having the recited tensile strength. The closest art, Watanabe, does not provide sufficient rationale to arrive at the recited composition having the recited characteristics of claims 8-11 in combination with the recited tensile strength range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764