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 06/30/2026 have been entered. Claims 32, 34-52 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 32, 34-47 and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriani et al (WO 2021/138141A1, of record, US2023/0051913, from the same application family, hereafter ‘913 is cited in this office action) in view of Adur et al (EP 0274888, ‘888 hereafter).
Regarding claims 32, 34-40, 42-47 and 52, ‘913 discloses a polymer blend reading upon thermoplastic composition ([0012]), comprising a copolyether-ester formed from monomers including poly(tetramethylene oxide glycol, terephthalic acid and butanediol ([0032]-[0045]), satisfying present claims 37-39; and an ethylene acrylic copolymer derived from methyl acrylate or butyl acrylate having an amount ranging of about 50 to 70% by weight of the ethylene acrylic copolymer ([0051], [0058]-0059]), an unsaturated carboxylic acid or an anhydride in an preferred amount of 2 to 5% by weight of the ethylene acrylic copolymer ([0054], [0059]-[0060], [0064]), satisfying present claims 42-44; wherein the weight ratio of the copolyether-ester to the ethylene acrylic copolymer in the thermoplastic composition ranges from 95:5 to 33:67 ([0066]), and the amount of the copolyether-ester can be in a range of 30 to 95 wt% ([0066]), thus render the amount of ethylene acrylic copolymer in a range of 5 to 70 wt%. ‘913 does not disclose that the composition further contains aluminum trihydrate in an amount of at least 40% by weight of the thermoplastic composition; however, it is well-known in the art that aluminum trihydrate is a halogen-free flame retardant agent which can be used in a thermoplastic composition to render the composition having desired flame retardant performance with low hazardous gases as evidenced by ‘888 (page 3, line 15-21, line 30-45), wherein the preferred amount of aluminum trihydrate in the composition is 50 to 75 wt%, specifically around 53 wt% without magnesium hydroxide as in the examples, satisfying present claims 32 and 46-47 (page 4, Line 22-25, Examples 3 and 4). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use aluminum trihydrate as a flame retardation agent, to modify the thermoplastic composition of ‘913, in order to render the thermoplastic composition having desired flame retardation performance with low hazardous gases. The prior art does not expressly set forth that the thermoplastic composition has melt flow index, tensile strength , elongation at break, and oxygen index; however, as set forth above, modified ‘913 fairly suggests a thermoplastic composition comprising a copolyether-ester, an ethylene acrylic copolymer and aluminum trihydrate being substantially identical to the thermoplastic composition as presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect that the prior art thermoplastic would have possessed the same properties including the melt flow index, tensile strength , elongation at break, and oxygen index as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 41, modified ‘913 teaches all the limitations of claim 32, ‘913 also discloses that the copolyether-ester has a peak melting temperature less than 210 °C ([0085], [0095], extrusion temperature should be higher than polymer’s melting point).
Regarding claims 50 and 51, modified ‘913 teaches all the limitations of claim 32, ‘913 also discloses that the thermoplastic composition can be used to make a wire or cable jacket ([0081]).
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriani et al (WO 2021/138141A1, of record, US2023/0051913, from the same application family, hereafter ‘913 is cited in this office action) in view of Adur et al (EP 0274888, ‘888 hereafter), as applied to claim 32 above, further in view of Ultsch (US 2015/0038629, of record, ‘629 hereafter).
Regarding claims 48 and 49, modified ‘913 teaches all the limitations of claim 32, but does not disclose that the composition further includes a functionalized polydimethylsiloxane. However, it is known in the art that the functionalized polydimethylsiloxane can be used in a flame retardant thermoplastic composition to improve scratch/mar resistance as evidenced by ‘629 ([0068]), and the amount used can be in a range of 0.01 to 10% by weight ([0070]). In light of these teaches, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a functionalized polydimethylsiloxane as known in the art, to modify the thermoplastic composition of ‘913, in order to render a thermoplastic composition having better surface scratch resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the melt flow index of the resulting composition would not be achieved with a reasonable expectation of success because ‘888 teaches a composition includes an acrylate elastomer which is different from the polymer used in the composition of ‘913. It is noted that the rejection as drafted above does not require an acrylate elastomer from ‘888. Reference ‘888 is cited to evidence a well-known practice to apply aluminum trihydrate as a halogen-free flame retardant agent in a thermoplastic composition to render the composition having desired flame retardant performance. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use aluminum trihydrate as a flame retardation agent, to modify the thermoplastic composition of ‘913, in order to render the thermoplastic composition as presently claimed which is expected to provide desired flame retardation performance (oxygen index).
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stans 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
Prosecution Insights