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 .
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.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/039101 08/02/2022; PCT/US2022/ 039101 has PRO 63/203,871 08/03/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 08/20/24 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicants are suggested to change “250C” to “250 0C”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-6, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2006/0270806) in view of Masuda (US 2008/0233395).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11-12, 16, Hale discloses a copolyester composition (claim 1, para [0017]-[0020], [0055]-[0064]) comprising: (a) from 0.1 to 99 wt% of copolyester (encompassing claim 1 range of about 50 to about 95 wt%), the copolyester comprising: (i) a diacid component comprising from 70 to 100 mole% residues of terephthalic acid, from 0 to 30 mole% residues of a modifying aromatic diacid such as isophthalic acid (para [0343]), and from 0 to 10 mole% residues of an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid having up to 16 carbon atoms; and (ii) a glycol component comprising from 30 to 85 mole% (overlapping claim 1 range of 45 to 95 mole% or claim 3 range of 70 to 95 mole% or encompassing claim 4 range of from 60 to 75 mole%) of cyclohexanedimethanol (CHDM) residues, from 15 to 50 mole% (fall into claim 1 range of 5 to 65 mole%, or overlapping claim 3 range of 5 to 30 mole%, or encompassing claim 4 range of 30 to 40 mole%) of 2,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclobutane-1,3-diol (TMCD) residues, and from 0 to 10 mole% of a modifying glycol having 2 to 20 carbon atoms (para [0348]); wherein the inherent viscosity of the copolyester is from 0.35 to 0.75 dL/g (overlapping claim 1 range of 0.5 to 1.2 dL/g or claim 5 range of 0.55 to 0.85 dL/g) as determined in 60/40 (wt/wt) phenol/tetrachloroethane at a concentration of 0.5 g/100 ml at 25° C., and wherein the weight % is based on the weight of the copolyester, wherein the total mole % of the dicarboxylic acid component is 100 mole % and the total mole % of the glycol component is 100 mole %; and (b) from about 10 to about 25 wt% (fall into claimed range of about 5 to about 30 wt%) of a flame retardant additive comprising a halogen-containing compound (para [0390], [0517], [0539]), wherein the copolyester composition has a UL 94 of V2 or greater (read on claimed V-0 rating or better; para [0517]); and wherein the copolyester composition has a notched Izod impact strength of 352 to 1069 Joules/m (fall into claimed range of 125 Joules/m or greater; or claim 16 range of 150 Joules/m or greater; table 3). Hale does not disclose the flame retardant additive has a melting temperature (Tm) or a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 270° C. or less., and wherein the copolymer composition comprises from about 1 to about 10 wt% of flame retardant synergist additive.
However, Masuda discloses a polyester composition comprising terephthalic acid and glycol, bromine containing flame retardant, and flame retardant aid (read on synergist), wherein the flame retardant such as oligomer or polymer of tetrabromobisphenol A is present in an amount of 5-30 parts by weight, or specifically 15 parts by weight having melting point 178 to 180 0C, and flame retardant aid such as antimony trioxide is present in an amount of 4 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyester (fall into claim 2 range of about 1 to about 10 wt%), wherein the flame retardant influence the small physical property of the polyester and sufficient flame retardancy, wherein the flame retardant aid further enhance the flame retardancy (para [0009]-[0014], [0023], [0028]-[0032], table 1). Hale and Masuda are pertinent to the polyester composition comprising terephthalic acid and glycol, and halogen containing flame retardant.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Hale with the flame retardant such as oligomer or polymer of tetrabromobisphenol A in an amount of 5-30 parts by weight having melting point 178 to 180 0C, and flame retardant aid such as antimony trioxide in an amount of 4 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight, as taught by Masuda. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Masuda that to do so would help to sufficiently enhance the flame retardancy.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the copolyester composition, overlapping and/or encompassing the diacid, glycol and/or inherent viscosity requirement of claims 1, 3-5. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 13-14, Hale discloses impact modifiers such as reactive acrylic impact modifier (para [0390]).
Regarding claim 15, Hale discloses chain extender (para [0391]).
Regarding claim 17, since the composition is obvious over prior art, the properties such as ductile behavior would be necessarily same as claimed. If there is any difference between the product of Hale and the product of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Regarding claim 18, Hale discloses additives such as colorants, dyes, mold release agents, plasticizers, nucleating agents, or fillers (para [0390]).
Regarding claim 19-20, Hale discloses article such as film, or sheets (para [0394]-[0396]).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale in view of Masuda as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Masaaki (JP H0790047).
Hale includes the features of claims 1, 6 above.
Regarding claims 7-10, Hale discloses polyester/polymer compositions coated by extrusion coating or laminated to a substrate (para [0529]). Hale does not disclose the flame retardant comprising bromine containing compound such as oligomer or polymer of tetrabromobisphenol A has bromine content from 5 to 15 wt%.
However, Masaaki discloses a laminated substrate obtained in the presence of flame retardant such as oligomer or polymer of tetrabromobisphenol A has bromine content of 15 wt% to enhance the stability and minimize the expansion property of the laminated substrate (para [0005]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Hale with flame retardant such as oligomer or polymer of tetrabromobisphenol A has bromine content of 15 wt%, as taught by Masaaki. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Masaaki that to do so would enhance the stability and minimize the expansion property of the laminated substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (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, RANDY P 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights