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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process results in an improper definition of a process under 35 U.S.C. § 100(b); i.e., the claim language results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claim 48 provides for "Use of fire-retardant copolymers according to claim 1…” In this case, it is unclear if “use of” is an actual step or not. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 25-48 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 25 recites “selected from the group of formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24), comprising…” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C"). Thus, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the copolymer to be one of the listed formulas or if the claim is requiring ALL the listed copolymer formulas.
Claim 25 also recites parentheses around
PNG
media_image1.png
63
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the
PNG
media_image2.png
26
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
appears to be on a different line and causes confusion as to what the equal sign is referring to. It seems the claim should have each formula corrected to remove the parentheses and insert the appropriate ranges afterwards such as, “wherein ω[St] = >0 to <1, ω[P] = 0 to <1, ω[S] = >0 to <0.4.”
Claim 25 also recites a broad range and a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitations of “ω[P] = 0 to <1,” and “the sulfur content is <40% by weight,” and the claim also recites “the copolymer contains covalently bonded phosphorus compounds,” and “ω[S] = >0 to <0.4,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 26-30 are dependent claims which fail to alleviate the issues above.
Claim 31 recites “selected from the group of formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24), comprising…” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C"). Thus, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the copolymer to be one of the listed formulas or if the claim is requiring ALL the listed copolymer formulas.
Claim 31 also recites parentheses around
PNG
media_image1.png
63
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the
PNG
media_image2.png
26
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
appears to be on a different line and causes confusion as to what the equal sign is referring to. It seems the claim should have each formula corrected to remove the parentheses and insert the appropriate ranges afterwards such as, “wherein ω[St] = >0 to <1, ω[P] = 0 to <1, ω[S] = >0 to <0.4.”
Claim 31 also recites a broad range and a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 31 recites the broad recitations of “ω[P] = 0 to <1,” and “the sulfur content of less than 40% by weight,” and the claim also recites “the copolymer comprises covalently bonded phosphorus compounds,” and “ω[S] = >0 to <0.4,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 33 recites wherein the first copolymer is “selected of the group of copolymers comprising formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24)…” and wherein a second copolymer is “selected from a group of copolymers comprising the formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24)…” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. consisting of), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C"). Thus, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the copolymer to be one of the listed formulas or if the claim is requiring ALL the listed copolymer formulas.
Claim 35 recites “selected from a group of polymers comprising…or” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of…), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C").
Claim 37 recites “selected from a group of materials comprising…or” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of…), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C").
Claim 38 recites “selected from a group of materials comprising…or” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of…), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C").
Claim 38 also recites parentheses around “(0.1-10% by weight)” and “(0.5-20% by weight)”. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 32, 34, 36, 39-44, are dependent claims which fail to alleviate the issues above.
Claim 45 recites “selected from a group of copolymers comprising formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24)…” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C"). Thus, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the copolymer to be one of the listed formulas or if the claim is requiring ALL the listed copolymer formulas.
Claim 45 also recites parentheses around
PNG
media_image1.png
63
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the
PNG
media_image2.png
26
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
appears to be on a different line and causes confusion as to what the equal sign is referring to. It seems the claim should have each formula corrected to remove the parentheses and insert the appropriate ranges afterwards such as, “wherein ω[St] = >0 to <1, ω[P] = 0 to <1, ω[S] = >0 to <0.4.”
Claim 45 also recites a broad range and a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 45 recites the broad recitations of “ω[P] = 0 to <1,” and “a sulfur content is less than 40% by weight,” and the claim also recites “the copolymer comprises covalently bonded phosphorus compounds,” and “ω[S] = >0 to <0.4,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 45 also recites “A method for producing fire-retardant copolymers…” by mixing a blowing agent into a “polymer melt.” However, it is unclear if the “polymer melt” is the previously recited fire-retardant copolymers. Furthermore, if the polymer melt is not the fire-retardant copolymers, then it is unclear how the fire-retardant copolymers may be produced without any fire-retardant copolymers actually being produced.
Claim 46 recites “selected from a group of copolymers comprising formulas (6) to (15) and (17) to (24)…” This claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the alternatives are from a closed list (i.e. selected from a group consisting of), or an open list (i.e. comprising A, B, or C). See MPEP 2173.05(h) (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material comprises A, B, or C"). Thus, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the copolymer to be one of the listed formulas or if the claim is requiring ALL the listed copolymer formulas.
Claim 46 also recites parentheses around
PNG
media_image1.png
63
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the
PNG
media_image2.png
26
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
appears to be on a different line and causes confusion as to what the equal sign is referring to. It seems the claim should have each formula corrected to remove the parentheses and insert the appropriate ranges afterwards such as, “wherein ω[St] = >0 to <1, ω[P] = 0 to <1, ω[S] = >0 to <0.4.”
Claim 46 also recites a broad range and a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 45 recites the broad recitations of “ω[P] = 0 to <1,” and “a sulfur content of less than 40% by weight,” and the claim also recites “the copolymer comprises covalently bonded phosphorus compounds,” and “ω[S] = >0 to <0.4,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 46 also recites “A method for producing fire-retardant copolymers…” by “polymerization” and “adding an organic blowing agent.” However, it is unclear what components are in the “polymerization.” Furthermore, it is unclear how fire-retardant copolymers are produced when there are no listed monomers for the polymerization step.
Claim 47 is a dependent claim which fail to alleviate the issues above.
Claim 48 provides for "Use of fire-retardant copolymers according to claim 1…” In this case, it is unclear if “use of” is an actual step or not. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Pertinent Prior Art
US 3,459,717 A to Signouret et al. (hereinafter Signouret). Signouret teaches a plastic composition obtained by polymerizing 70 kg of sulfur, 15 kg of diphenyl ester of dithiophosphoric acid, and 15 kg of styrene. (See example 9 in the Table).
US 5,811,470 A to Prindle et al. (hereinafter Prindle). Prindle teaches a styrenic polymer with a phosphorus additive and an elemental sulfur (See abstract), obtained by extruding/mixing a styrenic polymer with a blowing agent and the phosphorus additive and elemental sulfur (col 4, ln 23-42 and col 11, ln 1-67), with 10 wt% of phosphorus additive and 1 wt% of elemental sulfur. (See Table C).
US 2016/0002380 A1 to Abe et al. (hereafter Abe). Abe teaches a copolymer comprising a phosphonate monomer unit, and a radical polymerizable monomer unit. (See abstract). Specifically, in Example 11, the copolymer is obtained by polymerizing 30 mass% of
PNG
media_image3.png
84
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEMMPO, 12 mass% of methyl methacrylate, and 58 mass% of styrene. (Table 3, para 117).
US 2017/0029704 A1 to Boday et al. (hereinafter Boday). Boday teaches a flame-retardant copolymer obtained by the following polymerization reaction:
PNG
media_image4.png
181
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. (See Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-3:45pm.
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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766