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 .
Preliminary amendment filed 1/22/2024 is made of record. Claims 1-13 and 15 are amended; and claim 14 is cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banno et al (WO 2019/093204 A1).
It is noted that WO 2019/093204 A1 (WO) is being utilized for date purposes. However, since WO is not in English, EP equivalent for WO, namely, Banno et al (EP 3 708 635 A1) is referred to in the body of the rejection below. All column and line citations are to the US equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, Banno et al disclose flame retardant resin composition (title) which reads on flame retardant composition in present claim 1. See example 2, wherein the composition comprises 70 pars by weight of polypropylene resin (i.e., reads on polypropylene polymer and its amount in present claim 1), 12 parts by weight of melamine pyrophosphate, 18 parts by weight of piperazine pyrophosphate (for a total of 30 parts by weight - i.e., read on nitrogen-containing flame retardant and its amount in present claim 1), and 1 part by weight of hydrous magnesium silicate (Table 1, paragraph 0092) which reads on the synergist comprising Mg in present claim 1. When the component (C) (i.e., hydrous magnesium silicate) is not present in comparative examples, it exhibited insufficient flame retardancy (paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 2, see example 2, wherein the composition comprises hydrous magnesium silicate (Table 1, paragraph 0092). It is noted that hydrous magnesium silicate is Sepiolite.
Regarding claims 3-5, see example 2, wherein the flame retardant composition comprises 12 parts by weight of melamine pyrophosphate, 18 parts by weight of piperazine pyrophosphate (Table 1 and paragraph 0092) which reads on nitrogen containing flame retardant comprises first nitrogen-containing phosphate (FR1) and second nitrogen-containing phosphate (FR-2) in present claim 3, a ratio of FR1 and FR2 is 40:60 in present claim 4; FR1 is melamine polyphosphate in present claim 5 and FR2 is piperazine pyrophosphate in present claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, see example 2, wherein the composition does not include ammonium polyphosphate (i.e., reads on flame retardant composition is free of ammonium polyphosphate in present claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, . see example 2, wherein the composition comprises 70 parts by weight of polypropylene resin, 12 parts by weight of melamine pyrophosphate, 18 parts by weight of piperazine pyrophosphate, and 1 part by weight of hydrous magnesium silicate (i.e., reads on overall amount of polypropylene, nitrogen-containing flame retardant and flame retardant synergist together make-up more than 90 wt% of the flame retardant polypropylene composition in present claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, see example 2, wherein the composition is free of halogens (Table 1 and paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 15, Banno et al teach that by molding the flame retardant resin composition, a molded article with excellent flame retardancy can be obtained (paragraph 0082).
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banno et al (WO 2019/093204 A1) in view of Aarnio-Winterhof et al (US 2019/0177520 A1 - hereafter Winterhof et al).
The discussion with respect to Banno et al in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference. Additionally, Banno et al teach that out of the various types of resins, form the view point of imparting excellent flame retardancy, it is preferable to use a polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene random copolymer, and polypropylene impact copolymer (paragraph 0077).
Banno et al are silent with respect to the polypropylene species of present claims.
However, Winterhof et al teaches polymer composition with flame retardant activity (abstract). Preferably the polymer of propylene is a copolymer of propylene (paragraph 0050). The total comonomer content is 0.5 to 20 wt% and is preferably selected from ethylene and/or C4-C8 α-olefin comonomers (paragraph 0066) which reads on present claim 8. Preferably, the PP polymer is a heterophasic copolymer of PP which comprises polypropylene matrix component and an elastomeric propylene copolymer component which is dispersed in said polypropylene matrix (paragraphs 0050-0051). The elastomeric copolymer comprises propylene and one or more of ethylene and/or C4-C8 α-olefin comonomers (paragraph 0062) which reads on present claim 9. The heterophasic copolymer of polypropylene has a xylene cold soluble (XCS) fraction of 5 to 25 wt% (paragraph 0073) which reads on present claim 10. The polypropylene composition has an MFR of 1 to 25.0 g/10 min when measured according to ISO 1133 (at 230 0C with 2.16 kg load) (paragraph 0108) which reads on present claim 12. Therefore, in light of the teachings in WInterhof et al and given that Banno contemplates preferably using a polypropylene resin in its composition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include any of the polypropylenes, of Winterhof et al, in the flame retardant composition, of Banno et al, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banno et al (WO 2019/093204 A1) in view of Tranninger et al (EP 2 738 214 A1).
The discussion with respect to Banno et al in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference. Additionally, Banno et al teach that out of the various types of resins, form the view point of imparting excellent flame retardancy, it is preferable to use a polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene random copolymer, and polypropylene impact copolymer (paragraph 0077).
Banno et al are silent with respect to the polypropylene species of present claims.
However, Tranninger et al teach tiger modifier being a heterophasic polypropylene composition comprising a propylene homopolymer and elastomeric propylene copolymer (abstract). The polymer reduces flow marks in injection molded systems (paragraph 0003). The heterophasic polypropylene (i.e., reads on heterophasic propylene copolymer in present claim 9) composition comprises a matrix being a propylene homopolymer (i.e., reads on matrix being a polymer of propylene in present claim 9) and dispersed therein the elastomeric propylene copolymer (paragraph 0017). The elastomeric propylene copolymer comprises monomers copolymerizable with propylene, in particular ethylene and/or C4-C10 α-olefins (paragraph 0027) which reads on elastomer in present claim 9 The xylene cold soluble fraction (XCS) of the heterophasic is preferably in the range of 11.0 to 35.0 wt% (paragraph 0026) which reads on XCS in present claim 10. The comonomer content of XCS fraction of the heterophasic polypropylene composition is in the range of 20.0 to 60.0 wt% (paragraph 0013) which reads on the comonomer content in present claim 11. See examples (page 20, Table 3a) wherein the compositions have MFR in the range of 8.3 to 13.0 g/mol (i.e., reads on MFR of the polypropylene composition in present claim 12). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Tranninger et al and given that Banno et al teach that its flame retardant composition is best used with resins such as polypropylene, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include the heterophasic polypropylene composition, of Tranninger et al, in the flame retardant resin composition, of Banno et al, for above mentioned advantages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights