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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 09/08/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-23 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 10-13, 15-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al (JP 2009275073. ‘073 hereafter, citation please see original document in Japanese).
Regarding claims 1-6, 10-13, 16-17 and 21-23, ‘073 discloses a flame retardant polypropylene composition comprising 54 wt% of a polypropylene being a heterophasic propylene copolymer with polypropylene as major component (matrix) and a copolymer comprising units derived from propylene and ethylene being an elastomer with comonomer content up to 15 mol% ([0015]-[0024], [0150], [0167], synthesis A1, Table 2, Example 3, 70/130=0.54); 15 to 45 wt% nitrogen-containing flame retardant (specifically 23 wt% in examples) which can be a melamine polyphosphate or/and piperazine pyrophosphate ([0148]-[0149], [0150], Examples); and 23 wt% of a branched polypropylene with low MFR being 2.5, reading upon a high melt strength polypropylene being an anti-dripping agent as claimed ([0029]-[0048], [0150], [0185], Table 1, Synthesis B1, Table 2, Examples 3). The composition does not contain halogen and glass fibers (see examples). ‘073 does not set forth that the high melt strength polypropylene having melt strength being at least 20 cN to 50 cN as claimed, however, the low MFR polypropylene of ’073 is a branched polypropylene with MFR being 2.5 falling within the instantly claimed MFR range as in claim12, which is substantially identical to the high melt strength polypropylene as used in the present application, thus it is reasonable to expect that the low MFR branched polypropylene would have possessed a melt strength in the present claimed range, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. ‘073 discloses that the heterophasic propylene copolymer has comonomer content being up to 15 mol%, but does not set forth that the copolymer has a xylene cold soluble fraction as claimed; however, since the heterophasic propylene copolymer is polymerized from a similar monomer mixture with Ziegler-Natta catalyst as the heterophasic propylene copolymer used in the present application, it is also expected that the heterophasic propylene copolymer of ‘703 would have a xylene cold soluble fraction as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 15, ‘703 also discloses an article comprising the flame retardant polypropylene composition ([0158])
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al (JP 2009275073. ‘073 hereafter, citation see original document in Japanese) as evidenced by Kim et al (WO 2021/107540, of record, see IDS 01/22/24, ‘540 hereafter).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 18-20, ‘073 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the flame retardant can be a nitrogen-containing flame retardant being melamine polyphosphate or/and piperazine pyrophosphate ([0148]-[0149]), but does not exemplify a composition containing both melamine polyphosphate and piperazine pyrophosphate. However, it is a common practice to use these two flame retardants together in a weight ratio satisfying presently claimed range to render a polyolefin composition having excellent flame retardancy and low smoke property as evidenced by ‘540 (see Abstract of ‘540). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these two flame retardants together to render a polypropylene composition having desired flame retardancy. Case law also holds that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/08/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited reference Kawai does not teach the claimed anti-dripping agent having a melt strength being at least 20 cN because the similar MFR of the polypropylene does not render the polypropylene having similar melt strength, such as B1 and B4 and of ‘073 having similar low MFR but having different Stain hardening degree. The branching architecture of the present HMS-PP is obtained by chemical modification of an unmodified polypropylene using peroxides and bifunctionally unsaturated monomers, but the Kawai's propylene-based polymer is a long-chain branched polymer produced by in-reactor macromer-copolymerized polymer using a dual metallocene catalyst. Thus, the two polymers described in Kawai and the present application are structurally different which may have different melt strength. However, the claimed subject matter does not require that the HMS-PP being obtained by chemical modification of an unmodified polypropylene using peroxides and bifunctionally unsaturated monomers. The present application mentioned that the HMS-PP is a branched polypropylene by a catalyst or by chemical modification (See PG-pub [0151], [0158]-[0159]) and the HMS-PP used in the example is a commercial product instead of a chemically modified polypropylene using peroxides and bifunctionally unsaturated monomers as argued. Since both Kawai’s branched PP and the HMS-PP of present application having branched chemical structure, it is reasonable to expect that these PP having similar melt strength (It is noted that the B4 of Kawai is treated by E-beam which has partial crosslinked structure instead of branched structure). The applicant is invited to provide objective evidence to show the melt strength of Kawai’s branched PP having different melt strength as presently claimed.
For the reasons set forth here and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
