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 .
Election/Restriction
The examiner requested a provisional election among Group I, claims 1-24 and Group II, claims 25-26 in a telephone call to the Applicant's representative on 5/27/2026, at which time a provisional election of Group I was made. After further consideration the provisional requirement for restriction has been withdrawn and claims 25-26 have been fully examined on their merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10 are objected to because they do not use the proper Markush language. The claims recite “the polyamide is a…" and “or”; whereas the proper Markush language is "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C." See MPEP 803.02. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 12, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "13 wt% to 15 wt% of an epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer". Claim 1 also recites “an epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer”. As such, it cannot be clearly ascertained if the claim refers to a second epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer or merely refers back to the corresponding material in claim 1 (i.e. the same).
Claim 3 recites the limitation " 9 wt% to 11 wt% of a tribromophenol end-capped brominated epoxy polymer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, wherein, the Claim 1 recites “a tribromophenol end-capped brominated epoxy polymer”. As such, it cannot be clearly ascertained if the claim refers to a second type of tribromophenol end-capped brominated epoxy polymer or merely refers back to the corresponding material in claim 1 (ie. the same).
Regarding Claim 12, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “wherein the DBDPE is present in amounts less than 10 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the polyamide composition is free of DBDPE” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade names Safire 400, SFR 100. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the flame retardant synergist and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-16, 18-26 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Van Den Poel (US20200115551, herein Van Den Poel) teaches flame retardant polyamide composition [0015] comprising: Vydyne ® 21A1 which is Polyamide 6,6, in the concentration of 62.20% [P11, Table 1 and P12, Table 2 (Ex. 1-3)], lies in the claimed range.
Van Den Poel teaches the selection of the decabromodiphenyl ethane is optional [0060], hence can lead to the concentration of 0% upon non-selection, which lies in the claimed range;
Van Den Poel teaches plasticizers [0099], 0 to about 20 wt. % [0111]; and less than about 5 wt. %, synergist selected from the group consisting of Sb2O3 and ZnBO4 [0096], reads on flame retardant synergist, which collectively meet the claimed group (B) from 1 wt % to 5% of one or more plasticizers and from 1 wt % to 5 wt % of one or more flame retardant synergists, and overlap the claimed ranges.
Van Den Poel teaches flame retardance package, which is present in an amount, relative to the weight of the entire composition of from 10 wt. % to about 60 wt. % [0056], comprising a halogenated flame retardant constituent [0055], wherein, the halogenated flame retardant constituent includes one or more brominated compounds, such as epoxidized tetrabromobisphenol A resin [0059], which reads on epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer, and overlaps the claimed range.
Van Den Poel does not teach the specific epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer and tribromophenol end-capped brominated epoxy polymer, and the ranges as claimed.
There is no suggestion in the prior art of record to show the claimed feature of the specific epoxy-terminated brominated epoxy polymer and tribromophenol end-capped brominated epoxy polymer, and the ranges as claimed.
As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 12, 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9, 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights