DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1, 2, 4-13 and 15 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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 1, 2, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 9,156,978 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Cai et al. disclose a flame retardant composition (see Abstract) comprising a polyolefin such as propylene polymer in amount of 5 to 65 parts by mass based on 100 parts by weight of the total composition (see col. 10, lines 6-18 and lines 52-56). Therefore, the amount of propylene polymer is 5 to 39 wt% (5 = 5/105 x 100 and 39 = 65/165 x 100). The flame retardant composition comprises at least one non-halogen containing flame retardant such as nitrogen-containing flame retardants including melamine polyphosphate and piperazine polyphosphate in amount of about 10 to about 65 wt% (see col. 9, lines 31-37, lines 44-45 and lines 55-59). Given that at least one non-halogen containing flame retardant is used, a combination of melamine polyphosphate (FR1) and piperazine polyphosphate (FR2) can be used. Other nitrogen-containing flame retardants include a blend of melamine pyrophosphate (FR1) and piperazine pyrophosphate (FR2) (see col. 9, lines 61-62). Further, the flame retardant composition comprises a bio-based filler such as lignin (biopolymer comprising phenolic hydroxyl groups) (see col. 11, lines 23-24). Although there is no explicit disclosure of the amount of lignin, Cai et al. disclose that fillers such as clay, talc, and mica are present in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt.% (col.11, lines 24-29). Given the disclosure in Cai et al. of the equivalence and interchangeability clay, talc, and mica with lignin as fillers (col.11, lines 17-24), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lignin in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt.%. While Cai et al. do not explicitly disclose that lignin is an anti-dripping agent, given that lignin is identical to an ant-dripping agent utilized in the present invention, lignin is the anti-dripping agent. Based on the aforementioned amounts, w(A)/w(FR) is 0.008 to 0.5 (0.008 = 0.5/65 and 0.5 = 5/10) which meets presently claimed equation (I).
In light of the overlap between the claimed flame retardant polypropylene composition and that disclosed by Cai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flame retardant polypropylene composition that is both disclosed by Cai et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Cai et al. disclose the flame retardant composition is halogen-free flame retardant composition (see Abstract). That is, the flame retardant composition is free of halogens including fluoropolymers. Further, the nitrogen-containing flame retardants and lignin are free of halogens.
Regarding claim 15, Cai et al. disclose an article comprising the flame retardant composition (see col. 11, lines 60-64).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 9,156,978 B1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Kokura et al. (WO 2019/240180 A1). It is noted that when utilizing Kokura et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2021/0246373 A1 (cited in IDS) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Kokura et al. are found in US ‘373.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cai et al. disclose the flame retardant polypropylene composition as set forth above. The nitrogen-containing flame retardants can be a combination of melamine polyphosphate (FR1) and piperazine polyphosphate (FR2) as noted above. Cai et al. do not disclose a weight ratio between the first nitrogen-containing phosphate (FR1) and the second nitrogen-containing phosphate (FR2) as presently claimed.
Kokura et al. disclose a flame retardant composition comprising (A) melamine polyphosphate and (B) piperazine polyphosphate, wherein the mass ratio of (A)/(B) is 20/80 to 80/20 in order to improve workability, weather resistance and flame retardancy (see paragraphs 0049, 0050 and 0051). Further, given that Kokura et al. disclose interchangeability and equivalency of piperazine pyrophosphate with piperazine triphosphate, i.e. piperazine polyphosphate, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use piperazine pyrophosphate instead of piperazine polyphosphate for (B) (see paragraphs 0019, 0034). Accordingly, the flame retardant composition comprises (A) melamine polyphosphate and (B) piperazine pyrophosphate.
In light of motivation for using (A) melamine polyphosphate and (B) piperazine pyrophosphate, wherein the mass ratio of (A)/(B) is 20/80 to 80/20 disclosed by Kokura et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use (A) melamine polyphosphate and (B) piperazine pyrophosphate, wherein the mass ratio of (A)/(B) is 20/80 to 80/20 as nitrogen containing flame retardants in the flame retardant polypropylene composition of Cai et al. in order to improve workability, weather resistance and flame retardancy, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, Cai et al. in view of Kokura et al. disclose FR1 and FR2 as presently claimed.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 9,156,978 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fukuoka et al. (5,710,223 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Cai et al. disclose the flame retardant polypropylene composition as set forth above. While Cai et al. disclose polypropylene polymer, Cai et al. do not disclose polypropylene polymer as presently claimed.
Fukuoka et al. disclose a propylene elastomer excellent in heat resistance, impact absorbing properties, transparency, heat sealing properties and antiblocking properties (see col. 8, lines 42-45 and col. 37-38, lines 66-2). The propylene elastomer contains propylene in amount of 50 to 95 mol% and ethylene units in amount of 5 to 50 mol% (see col. 8, lines 27-31).
In light of motivation for using propylene elastomer disclosed by Fukuoka et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use propylene elastomer of Fukuoka et al. as the propylene polymer in Cai et al. in provide excellent heat resistance, impact absorbing properties, transparency, heat sealing properties and antiblocking properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Cai et al. in view of Fukuoka et al. disclose the flame retardant polypropylene composition including propylene polymer, nitrogen-containing flame retardants and anti-dripping agent identical to that presently claimed and with their amounts overlapping with that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, the flame retardant polypropylene composition of Cai et al. in view of Fukuoka et al. necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 9,156,978 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wen et al. (WO 2020/064752 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding to claims 10, 11, and 13, Cai et al. disclose the flame retardant composition as set forth above. While Cai et al. disclose polypropylene polymer, Cai et al. do not disclose polypropylene polymer as presently claimed.
Wen et al. disclose a heterophasic propylene copolymer (HECO) that provides a combination of mechanical properties, such as impact strength over a wide temperature range and their low cost (see page 4, lines 13-17). The heterophasic propylene copolymer consists of propylene–based matrix and ethylene-a-olefin copolymer such as propylene-ethylene copolymer (see col. 5, lines 9-10 and pages 5-6, lines 35-5). HECO has a fraction soluble in xylene at 25 °C (CXS) (xylene cold soluble fraction) measured according to ISO 16152 of 5 to 40 wt% (see page 8, lines 22-23).
In light of motivation for using heterophasic propylene copolymer (HECO) disclosed by Wen et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use heterophasic propylene copolymer (HECO) of Wen et al. as the propylene polymer in Cai et al. in order to provides a combination of mechanical properties, such as impact strength over a wide temperature range and their low cost, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Cai et al. in view of Wen et al. disclose the flame retardant polypropylene composition including propylene polymer, nitrogen-containing flame retardants and anti-dripping agent identical to that presently claimed and with their amounts overlapping with that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, the flame retardant polypropylene composition of Cai et al. in view of Wen et al. necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 9,156,978 B1) in view of Wen et al. (WO 2020/064752 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Resconi et al. (US 2017/0247484 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Cai et al. in view of Wen et al. disclose the flame retardant composition as set forth above. While Wen et al. disclose heterophasic propylene copolymer (HECO), Cai et al. in view of Wen et al. do not disclose xylene soluble fraction (XCS) as presently claimed.
Resconi et al. disclose a heterophasic propylene copolymer, wherein XCS (xylene soluble fraction) has intrinsic viscosity of at least 1.5 dl/g and an ethylene content of 10 to 70 wt% (which would overlap the amount in mol% as claimed) measured according to ISO 1628/1 at 135 °C in decalin (see paragraphs 0046 and 0256). The intrinsic viscosity and high ethylene content provides polymer with high impact strength at low temperatures (see paragraph 0011).
In light of motivation for using a heterophasic propylene copolymer, wherein XCS (xylene soluble fraction) has intrinsic viscosity of at least 1.5 dl/g and an ethylene content of 10 to 70 wt% disclosed by Resconi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use XCS (xylene soluble fraction) having intrinsic viscosity of at least 1.5 dl/g and an ethylene content of 10 to 70 wt% in Cai et al. in view of Wen et al. in order to provide polymer with high impact strength at low temperatures, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 10,266,673 B2) in view of Qi et al. (CN 105778267 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Qi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-7, Shimizu et al. disclose a flame-retardant composition comprising 40 to 90 mass% of polypropylene polymer and 10 to 35 wt% of flame retardant components (see col. 21, claim 1). The flame retardant components include nitrogen-containing flame retardant comprising a mixture of melamine polyphosphate (A) (FR1) and piperazine pyrophosphate (B) in a ratio of 20/80 to 50/50 which overlaps with that presently claimed (see col. 21, claim 1).
Shimizu et al. do not disclose an anti-dripping agent, wherein the anti-dripping agent is lignin (bipopolymer comprising phenolic hydroxyl groups).
Qi et al. disclose environment-friendly anti-aging polypropylene material comprising polypropylene and 1 to 5 wt% lignin (see Abstract). Lignin provides anti-aging properties (see paragraph 0005). While Qi et al. do not explicitly disclose that lignin is an anti-dripping agent, given that lignin is identical to an ant-dripping agent utilized in the present invention, lignin is the anti-dripping agent.
In light of motivation for using 1 to 5 wt% of lignin disclosed by Qi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 1 to 5 wt% of lignin in the flame-retardant composition of Shimizu et al. in order to provide anti-aging properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Shimizu et al. in view of Qi et al. disclose the flame retardant composition comprising 10 to 35 wt% of nitrogen-containing flame retardant and 1 to 5 wt% lignin. Accordingly, w(A)/w(FR) is 0.03 to 0.5 (0.03 = 1/35 and 0.5 = 5/10) which meets presently claimed equation (I).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu et al. disclose the flame-retardant composition as set forth above. As noted above, the nitrogen-containing flame retardants and lignin are free of halogens. Shimizu et al. disclose using one or more halogen-free flame retardants (see col. 10, lines 54-58). Further, Shimizu et al. discloses inclusion of a fluorine-based anti-dripping agent is not preferred from the viewpoint of achieving a halogen-free environment to reduce an environmental load, and teaches the flame-retardant composition not containing a fluorine-based anti-dripping agent (see col. 16, lines 13-19 and col. 21, claim 1). Shimizu et al. disclose using one or more halogen-free flame retardants (see col. 10, lines 54-58). Shimizu et al. disclose optional halogen-containing synthetic resins (see col. 16, lines 52-26 and line 64). Accordingly, Shimizu et al. disclose the flame-retardant composition is free of halogens including fluoropolymers.
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu et al. disclose the flame-retardant composition as set forth above. Based on amounts of polypropylene polymer (40 to 90 wt%), nitrogen containing fire-retardants (10 to 35 wt%) and antidripping agent (1 to 5 wt%), the overall amounts can be at least 90 wt% (100 = 86 + 13 + 1).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu et al. disclose the flame-retardant composition as set forth above. Further, Shimizu et al. disclose the polypropylene polymer is random copolymer of propylene and ethylene, wherein ethylene monomer is present in amount of 5 mass% or less (see col. 21, claim 1). Based on 5 g of ethylene and 95 g of polypropylene, the moles of ethylene are 0.18 (0.18 = 5/28.05, 28.05 is molecular weight of ethylene) and the moles of propylene are 2.23 (2.23 = 95/42.08, 42.08 is molecular weight of propylene). Based on total moles of 2.41, the mol% of ethylene is 7.5 mol% (7.5 = 0.18/2.41 x 100). Therefore, the amount of ethylene monomer in the random copolymer of propylene and ethylene is 7.5 mol% or less.
Regarding claim 15, Shimizu et al. disclose an article comprising the flame-retardant composition (see col. 18, lines 18-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments except as set forth below are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Applicants argue that moreover, the data in the present application supports the unexpected results of the claimed composition including the amount of anti-dripping agent and nitrogen-containing flame retardant. Comparative Examples CE2 to CE4 of the present application have a comparatively higher amount of lignin of 5 wt% (CE2) or 3 wt% (CE3 and CE4) and comparatively higher ratio of w(A)/ w(FR) of 0.25 (CE1), 0.15 (CE3) or 0.17 (CE4), whereas the Inventive Example IE1 has the an amount of lignin within the claimed range of 1 wt% and ratio w(A) / w(FR) of 0.05. As can be seen in the Examples of the present application, there is a fine adjustment in the amounts of anti-dripping agent and nitrogen-containing flame retardant that effect the properties of the compositions as shown in Table 2 and [0184] to [0185] of the published application, US 2024/0352242). For example, the limited oxygen index (LOI), a measure of the minimum oxygen concentration required to support combustion is maintained on a high level for IE1, but is lower for CE2 to CE4, which represent a higher amount of lignin. The present application also recognized that improvements in OIT must be balanced against other properties such as the LOI and the cone time to ignition, which can decrease significantly when the lignin/FR ratio is too high as in CE2 to CE4. This is not recognized in the prior art of record.
However, the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of present claims given that (i) the examples recite a specific propylene polymer in specific amounts, while the present claim recite any propylene polymer in any amounts (ii) the examples recite a specific nitrogen-containing flame retardant in specific amounts, while the present claims recite any nitrogen-containing flame retardant in broad amounts (iii) the examples recite a specific lignin anti-dripping agent in specific amounts, while the present claim recite any any lignin anti-dripping agent in broad amounts and (iv) the examples recite a specific ratio of w(A)/w(FR), while the present claims has broad recitation of ratio of w(A)/w(FR).
In light of amendments, 112(b) second paragraph rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights