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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (JP 2005162871 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation) in view of Okoshi (US 2012/0101190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches a flame-retardant composition useful for electrical housings ([0008]), comprising a resin which may be cellulose acetate ([0026]), a phosphate ester-based plasticizer including inter alia triphenyl phosphate ([0028]), an anti-dripping agent ([0083]), and a flame retardant hydroxide including inter alia aluminum hydroxide ([0041]).
Regarding the claimed compositional amounts, Horie teaches an example containing 100 parts of cellulose acetate, 30 parts of aluminum hydroxide, and 40 parts of triphenyl phosphate ([0110], Table 2, Example 28). While this example does not contain a component reading on the claimed “anti-dripping agent,” as described above, Horie teaches the optional incorporation of said component ([0083]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the anti-dripping agent within the examples of Horie.
The combined amounts of cellulose acetate and triphenyl phosphate (which read on the claimed components “(A)” and “(B),” respectively), totals 140 parts. The 40 parts of triphenyl phosphate therefore correspond to about 28.6 wt% of the total amounts of these components, which falls within the claimed range of “20% by mass or more and less than 30% by mass,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Horie is silent with regard to the amount of anti-dripping agent within the composition, and is therefore silent with regard to the content of metal hydroxide (equivalent to claimed component “(D)”) based on all of the above-mentioned components.
In the same field of endeavor, Okoshi teaches a flame retardant composition (Abstract) which may contain cellulose acetate ([0072]), a metal hydroxide ([0120]), a phosphate ester ([0115]), and an anti-dripping agent ([0141]-[0145]). Okoshi specifically teaches that the anti-drip agent is suitably included in amounts ranging from 0.01 to 5 phr ([0145]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the anti-drip agent of Horie in amounts ranging from 0.01 to 5 phr, as Okoshi teaches said amounts as suitable within highly similar flame retardant cellulose acetate compositions. In so doing, the modified composition of Example 28 of Horie would contain 100 parts of cellulose acetate, 30 parts of aluminum hydroxide, 40 parts of triphenyl phosphate, and between 0.01 and 5 parts of anti-drip agent. In this case, the content of the metal hydroxide would equal about 17.1-17.6 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of “10% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less based on 100% by mass of a total content of the components (A) to (D),” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Horie specifically teaches the use of triphenyl phosphate ([0095]).
Regarding claim 3, as described above, Horie teaches the use of aluminum hydroxide ([0077]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Horie teaches that the anti-drip agent may be a fluororesin, and further states that the fluororesin may be formed from fluorine containing monomers alone, including tetrafluoroethylene ([0083]), which reads on the claimed “polytetrafluoroethylene.”
Regarding claim 6, as described above, the modified composition of Example 28 of Horie would contain 100 parts of cellulose acetate, 30 parts of aluminum hydroxide, 40 parts of triphenyl phosphate, and between 0.01 and 5 parts of anti-drip agent. In this case, the content of the anti-drip agent would equal about 0.006-2.86 wt%, which encompasses the claimed range of “0.01% by mass or more and 2% by mass or less based on 100% by mass of a total content of the components (A) to (D),” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, the modified composition of Example 28 of Horie would contain 100 parts of cellulose acetate, 30 parts of aluminum hydroxide, 40 parts of triphenyl phosphate, and between 0.01 and 5 parts of anti-drip agent. In this case, the content of the metal hydroxide would equal about 17.1-17.6 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “12.5% by mass or more and 17.5% by mass or less based on 100% by mass of a total content of the components (A) to (D),” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Horie teaches an additional inventive example (Example 34, c.f. Table 2 at [0110]) containing 100 parts of cellulose acetate, 50 parts of aluminum hydroxide, and 30 parts of triphenyl phosphate. In this example, the content of triphenyl phosphate with respect to the total content of cellulose acetate and triphenyl phosphate is about 23.1%, which falls within the claimed range of “22.5% by mass or more and 26% by mass or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Importantly, with the addition of between 0.01 and 5 parts of anti-drip agent (rendered obvious by the teachings of Okoshi, as described above), the composition of this example as-written contains between about 27.0 and 27.8 wt% of metal hydroxide with respect to the cellulose acetate, aluminum hydroxide, triphenyl phosphate, and anti-drip agent, which exceeds the range of claimed component “(D)” within claim 1, on which claim 8 depends; however, Horie additionally states that the compositional amount of hydroxide (which includes aluminum hydroxide) may be specifically tuned to preferably fall within the range of 20 and 120 parts by weight ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the compositional amount of aluminum hydroxide within the formula of inventive example to fall within the range of 20 to 120 parts by weight. The resulting compositional range of aluminum hydroxide with respect to cellulose acetate, aluminum hydroxide, triphenyl phosphate, and anti-drip agent would therefore range from about 12.9% (corresponding to a minimum incorporation of aluminum hydroxide, 20 phr, and a maximum incorporation of anti-drip agent, 5 phr, alongside 100 parts of cellulose acetate and 30 parts of triphenyl phosphate) to about 48.0% (corresponding to a maximum incorporation of aluminum hydroxide, 120 phr, and a minimum incorporation of anti-drip agent, 0.01 phr, alongside 100 parts of cellulose acetate and 30 parts of triphenyl phosphate). This range overlaps the criteria of “10% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less” within claim 1, and this adjustment has no bearing on the amount of component “(B)” as claimed because said amount is claimed relative to the total of components “(A)” and “(B)” only. Therefore, the modified composition of inventive Example 34 of Horie simultaneously meets all of the limitations of claim 8 (including all of the limitations of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Horie teaches a molded article of the inventive composition ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights