DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-31 are cancelled and claims 32-51 are new, resulting in claims 32-51 pending for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 32-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arpin (US 2010/0292367) in view of Szekely (WO 2020/047406) and Kaprinidis (US 2004/0097620). Supporting evidence provided by Hirsch (US 4145556).
With respect to claims 32 and 45, Arpin teaches a polyester composition comprising at least one polyester resin (paragraph [0011]). The polyester resin is preferably selected from thermoplastic polyesters derived from one or more dicarboxylic acids and one or more diols, copolyester thermoplastic elastomers (TPC) and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0012]). The copolyester thermoplastic elastomer (TPC) may be a polyetherester (paragraph [0013]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the different thermoplastic polyesters listed in paragraphs [0012] and [0016], which includes a copolyesther-ester in order to determine which provides the desired mechanical properties and surface appearance (see e.g., paragraph [0002]).
Arpin further teaches the polyester composition may include a phosphorus-based antioxidant (paragraph [0037]), one or more flame retardants (paragraph [0038]), and epoxy-containing compounds (paragraph [0044]). Arpin further teaches the polyester composition may further include a phenolic-based antioxidant (Table 1; paragraphs [0037], [0054]) which is preferably a sterically hindered phenol (paragraph [0037]).
Arpin is silent as to the polyester composition including a metal deactivator, specifically a bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine.
Szekely teaches a copolyetherester resin composition comprising (A) at least one copolyetherester; (B) at least one phenolic antioxidant; (C) at least one thioester antioxidant; (D) at least one phosphite and/or phosphonite antioxidant; and (E) at least one epoxy compound (page 1, lines 27-33). The phenolic antioxidant is not particularly limited provided it is a hindered phenol capable of acting as radial scavengers (page 8, lines 15-17). A suitable phenolic antioxidant includes 1,2-bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine (page 8, lines 25-34).
Since both Arpin and Szekely teach copolyetherester resins comprising a hindered phenolic antioxidant, a phosphorus-containing antioxidant, and an epoxy compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phenolic antioxidant of Arpin to be 1,2-bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine as described by Szekely because it is known in the art as a suitable phenolic antioxidant for polyetherester and would provide the predictable result of a polyethereater protected from oxidation. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Arpin in view of Szekely does not explicitly teach that the 1,2-bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine is a metal deactivator, however it is reasonable to presume it would perform as a metal deactivator because the instant specification discloses bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine as a suitable metal deactivator (see e.g., claim 45). Additionally, Szekely identifies suitable metal deactivators as including hydrazines (page 14, lines 2-5) and it is known in the art that antioxidants may also perform as metal deactivators (Hirsch; col. 2, lines 8-20).
Arpin in view of Szekely is silent as to the polyester composition including an acid scavenger.
Kaprinidis teaches a flame retardant polymer composition which comprises (a) an organic polymer substrate and (b) an effective flame retarding amount of a synergistic mixture of (i) at least one sterically hindered amine stabilizer, (ii) at least one conventional flame retardant such as an organohalogen, and (iii) at least one acid scavenger (paragraphs [0023]-[0028]). A suitable polymer substrate includes block copolyether esters (paragraphs [0039], [0064]). The acid scavengers aid in the present composition in color, odor, and stability (paragraph [0271]).
Since both Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teach polyetherester compositions comprising a flame retardant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester composition of Arpin in view of Szekely to include an acid scavenger to aid in the color, odor, and stability of the composition.
With respect to claim 33, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the polyester composition may further include a phenolic-based antioxidant (Table 1; paragraphs [0037], [0054]).
With respect to claim 34, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the copolyetheresters have a multiplicity of recurring long-chain ester units and short chain ester units (paragraph [0013]). Preferred long chain ester units are poly(alkylene oxide glycols) such as poly(tetramethylene oxide) glycol, poly(trimethylene oxide) glycol, poly(propylene oxide) glycol, and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0014]). The short-chain ester units are made by reacting a low molecular weight diol with a dicarboxylic acid to form ester units (paragraph [0015]). A preferred diol is 1,4-butanediol (paragraph [0015]). The dicarboxylic acid preferably comprises terephthalic acid or isophthalic acid (paragraph [0012]).
With respect to claim 35, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the flame retardant may be a halogenated flame retardant such as bromine-containing compounds (paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
With respect to claim 36, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the flame retardant comprises from at or about 5 to at or about 30 wt.%, or preferably from at or about 10 to at or about 25 wt.%, the weight percentages being based on the total weight of the polyester composition (paragraph [0043]).
The amount of flame retardant range of Arpin substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 36. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Arpin, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claims 37-38, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches preferred examples of the phosphorus-based antioxidants are phosphite and phosphonite stabilizers, preferably diphosphite stabilizers (paragraph [0037]).
With respect to claims 39-40, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above.
Arpin in view of Skekely is silent as to the phosphorous-containing antioxidant being selected from the lists presented in claims 39-40.
Kaprinidis further teaches that suitable phosphite and phosphonite antioxidants include bis(2,6-di-ter-butyl-4-methylphenyl)pentaerythritol-di-phosphite and bis(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphate (page 12, lines 1-16).
Since both Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teach polyetherester compositions comprising a flame retardant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phosphorus antioxidant of Arpin to be bis(2,6-di-ter-butyl-4-methylphenyl)pentaerythritol-di-phosphite or bis(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphate as described by Kaprinidis because it is known in the art as a suitable phosphorus antioxidant for polyetherester and would provide the predictable result of a polyethereater protected from oxidation. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to claim 41, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the antioxidants are comprise from at or about 0.1 to at or about 3 wt%, or preferably from at or about 0.1 to at or about 1 wt%, more preferably from at or about 0.1 to 0.8 wt%, the weight percentages being based on the total weight of the polyester composition (paragraph [0037]).
With respect to claims 42-43, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the epoxy-containing compound may be a bisphenol epoxy resin produced from the condensation of bisphenol A and epichlorohydrin (paragraphs [0044], [0054]).
With respect to claim 44, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches examples which use 0.60 wt% epoxy resin (Table 1; paragraph [0054]).
With respect to claim 46, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the phenolic-based antioxidants may comprise from or about 0.1 to at or about 3 wt%, or preferably from at or about 0.1 to at or about 1 wt%, more preferably from at or about 0.1 to at or about 0.8 wt%, the weight percentages being based on the total weight of the polyester composition (paragraph [0037]). Szekely similarly teaches the phenolic antioxidant is preferably present in an amount of from 0.10 to 0.6 wt%, more preferably from 0.1 to 0.3 wt%, more particularly preferably 0.2 to 0.3 wt% based on the total weight of the copolyetherester resin composition (page 9, lines 18-21). As discussed in the rejection of claim 32 above, the phenolic antioxidant bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamoyl)hydrazine of Arpin in view of Szekely is a metal deactivator.
With respect to claim 47, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Kaprindis further teaches the acid scavengers are present in the polymeric compositions at a level of about 0.1% to about 1.0% by weight (paragraph [0270]).
With respect to claim 48, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. The example of Arpin uses only diphosphite based antioxidant and phenolic based antioxidant (Table 1; paragraph [0054]), and is therefore free of thioester antioxidants.
With respect to claim 49, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 32 above. Arpin further teaches the polyester compositions are suited for a wide variety of uses such as automative parts and electrical/electronic parts (paragraph [0053]).
Arpin is silent as to the polyester composition being used as a cable.
Szekely further teaches that the copolyetherester resin composition may be shaped into articles such as wire and cable coatings (page 22, lines 14-31).
Since both Arpin and Szekely teach copolyetherester resins comprising a hindered phenolic antioxidant, a phosphorus-containing antioxidant, and an epoxy compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polyester composition as a cable because polyetherester resins are known in the art as suitable for cables and would provide the predictable result of a molded cable.
Claim(s) 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arpin (US 2010/0292367) in view of Szekely (WO 2020/047406) and Kaprinidis (US 2004/0097620) as applied to claim49 above, and further in view of Nakane (US 5034440).
With respect to claims 50-51, Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis teaches all the limitations of claim 49 above. Arpin further teaches the polyester compositions are suited for a wide variety of uses such as automative parts and electrical/electronic parts (paragraph [0053]) and Szekely further teaches that the copolyetherester resin composition may be shaped into articles such as wire and cable coatings (page 22, lines 14-31).
Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis is silent as to the cable having an outer diameter ranging from about 0.8 mm to about 1.5 mm and an ultrathin wall thickness ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
Nakane teaches a resin composition comprising a polyester and a specified flame retarding agent containing an epoxy and a halogen and an electric wire coated as a covering layer with the polyester resin (col. 1, lines 6-16). Nakane further teaches that although the thickness of the covering insulator is restricted by, e.g., processability and covering characteristics of the covering material, it is preferred that the thickness be as small as possible (col. 3, lines 14-24). When the outer diameter of the conductor is 3.7 mm or less, the lower limit of the thickness of the conventional covering material is 0.9 to 0.6 mm, whereas the covering material of the presented invention enables thicknesses to be reduced to 0.4 mm or less and even reduced to 0.3 mm or less (col. 3, lines 14-24). An example provided a copper wire with a diameter of 1 mm and a coating thickness of 0.2 mm (col. 9, lines 43-47). This would result in the cable having an outer diameter of 1.4 mm. The reduction of the thickness impairs the mechanical and electrical characteristics and also attains excellent flexing property (col. 8, lines 47-52).
Since both Arpin in view of Szekely and Kaprinidis and Nakane teach polyester coatings for wires and cables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester composition coating the wire to have a reduced thickness, for example less than 0.3 mm, such as 0.2 mm, on a wire that is conventionally less than 3.7 mm in diameter, such as 1 mm, in order to provide a coated wire that has excellent flexing properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789