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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed November 09, 2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A composition having flame retardant properties comprising
a polymeric material and
a bauxite as flame retardant filler dispersed in the polymeric material,
wherein the bauxite has an aluminum hydroxide content of at least 50% by weight and is in the form of particles having an average size (d50) not higher than 8.0 µm and a specific surface area (BET) not higher than 10.0 m2/g.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because it does not use the proper Markush language. The claim recites “selected from the group consisting of”…and then recites ”or derivatives thereof”. 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 9, 12, and 23 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the surface", and Claim 23 recites “the transport”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
The terms “high density”, “medium density”, and “low density” in Claim 12 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high”, “medium”, low”, are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-17, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocktaeschel et al. (CN 103443247A; English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Rocktaeschel”).
Regarding Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-11, Rocktaeschel teaches a flameproofing agent in a mineral structure [Claim 1; ¶0055-0063], corresponding to a composition having flame retardant properties of Claim 1, comprising:
Polymers such as polyethylene [Claim 5; ¶ 0055, 0279], corresponding to the polymeric material of Claim 1, wherein the polymeric material is a polyolefin of Claim 10, and thereby reading on wherein the polyolefin is an ethylene homopolymer of Claim 11;
Modified red mud produced from bauxite [Claim 1; 0093], corresponding to the bauxite of Claim 1;
At least 80% by weight of aluminum hydroxide [¶ 0032; Claim 2], corresponding to an aluminum hydroxide content of at least 50% by weight of Claim 1, an aluminum hydroxide content of at least 70% by weight of Claim 8;
d50 average particle diameter << 1 µm [¶ 0164], corresponding to an average particle size (d50) not higher than 8.0 µm of Claim 1, to an average particle size (d50) not higher than 6.0 µm of Claim 4, and to an average particle size (d50) at least equal to 0.5 µm of Claim 5; and
BET special surface area of 2-50 m2/g [¶ 0164], which overlaps with a specific surface area (BET) not higher than 10.0 m2/g of Claim 1, a specific surface area (BET) not higher than 9.0 m2/g of Claim 6, a specific surface area (BET) at least equal to 2.0 m2/g of Claim 7.
However, Rocktaeschel does not explicitly teach a specific surface area (BET) not higher than 10.0 m2/g of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Rocktaeschel for the specific surface area (BET) (2-50 m2/g) overlaps the instantly claimed range (not higher than 10.0 m2/g) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 9, and 14-15, Rocktaeschel further teaches:
Coupling agents, such as fatty acid derivatives, to coat the surface of the flame retardant [Claim 6; ¶ 0174], thereby reading on the coupling agent is a saturated or unsaturated fatty acid of Claim 9;
ethylene-vinyl acetate polymer (EVA) [¶ 0178], correspond to the polyolefin is a copolymer of ethylene with at least one an ester having an ethylenic unsaturation of Claim 14, and thereby reading on the ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) of Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Rocktaeshel further teaches polyethylene copolymers and polypropylene [¶ 0092], corresponding to the ethylene/propylene copolymer of Claim 16, and propylene homopolymer of Claim 17.
However, Rocktaeschel does not explicitly teach wherein the polyolefin is an ethylene/propylene copolymer comprising from 5 to 25% by weight of ethylene and from 75 to 95% by weight of propylene of Claim 16.
Nevertheless, Rocktaeschel teaches combustible materials, such as polyethylene copolymers and polypropylene, can be easily burned because they are non-volatile hydrocarbons [¶ 0092]. Therefore, the amount and ratio of polyethylene copolymers and polypropylene can be optimized to reach the desired flame-resistant via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the amount of polyethylene copolymers and polypropylene for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 19-21 and 23, Rocktaeschel further teaches:
Polyvinyl chloride [¶ 0178, 0267], corresponding to wherein the polyolefin is a halogenated polyolefin of Claim 19;
coupling agent, such as silanes [¶ 0174], corresponding to the coupling agent of 20, and thereby reading on the silane compound of Claim 21; and
a process for producing fire-resistant material structures such as a building materials and cable insulation sleeve, thereby reading on a method of producing coverings for pipes of Claim 23.
Claims 2-3, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocktaeschel et al. (CN 103443247A; English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Rocktaeschel”) in view of von Benten et al. (CN 102076751A; English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “von Benten”).
Rocktaeschel teaches the polymer, flame retardant, bauxite, aluminum hydroxide content, d50 average particle size, and BET surface area of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 2-3, however, Rocktaeschel does not explicitly teach wherein the bauxite is present in the polymeric material in an amount equal to at least 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of polymeric material (phr) of Claim 2, and wherein the bauxite is present in the polymeric material in an amount not higher than 280 phr of Claim 3.
Nevertheless, von Benten teaches a thermoplastic molding comprising polyamide, flame retardant, aluminum hydroxide obtained from bauxite and fatty acids [¶ 0002-0005, 0064, 0092, 0221]. Von Benten further teaches:
50-98 wt. % ethylene [¶ 0169], corresponding to the polymeric material;
50-60 wt. % aluminum hydroxide obtained from bauxite [¶ 0057], corresponding to the bauxite;
which is equivalent to 51-120 phr of bauxite with respect to 100 parts by weight of polymeric material, corresponding to at least 100 parts by weight of bauxite of Claim 2, and an amount not higher than 280 phr parts by weight of bauxite of Claim 3.
Von Benten offers the motivation that bauxite can be used as a nucleating agent [¶ 0225], and polymers may be added as an impact modifier [¶ 0155].
Rocktaeschel and von Benten are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of flame-retardant polymer compositions comprising bauxite with aluminum hydroxide and fatty acid derivatives.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of bauxite and polymer of von Benten with the composition of Rocktaeschel, with the motivation to modify the composition’s mechanical properties, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 18 and 22, Rocktaeschel does not explicitly teach wherein the propylene copolymer is a heterophasic copolymer consisting of a propylene-based thermoplastic phase in which an elastomeric phase based on ethylene copolymerized with an alpha-olefin is dispersed of Claim 18, and wherein the coupling agent is pre-grafted onto an ethylene homopolymer or copolymer of ethylene with a C3-C12 alpha-olefin of Claim 22.
Nevertheless, von Benten teaches a thermoplastic material with an elastomer phase comprising ethylene propylene diene monomer rubbers [¶ 0159, 0180], corresponding to wherein the propylene copolymer is a heterophasic copolymer consisting of a propylene-based thermoplastic phase in which an elastomeric phase based on ethylene copolymerized with an alpha-olefin is dispersed of Claim 18.
Von Benten further teaches said ethylene propylene diene monomer rubbers can be grafted with reactive carboxylic acids and monomers to promote chemical bonding within the matrix [¶ 0162, 0196], thereby reading on wherein the coupling agent is pre-grafted onto a copolymer of ethylene with a C3-C12 alpha-olefin of Claim 22.
Von Benten offers the motivation that the ethylene propylene diene monomer rubbers is preferably grafted with reactive carboxylic acids to promote chemical bonding within the matrix and that graft monomers can react act different rates during polymerization [¶ 0162, 0196].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the propylene copolymer and grafting of von Benten with the composition of Rocktaeschel, with the motivation to modify said composition’s chemical bonding with the matrix and polymerization rates, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocktaeschel et al. (CN 103443247A; English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Rocktaeschel”) in view of Brown et al. (US 6252173 B1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11/09/2023; hereafter as “Brown”) as evidenced by McKeen (Introduction to use of plastics in food packaging. Plastic films in food packaging. William Andrew Publishing, 2013. 1-15; hereafter as “McKeen”).
Rocktaeschel teaches the polymer, flame retardant, bauxite, aluminum hydroxide content, d50 average particle size, and BET surface area of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Rocktaeschel does not explicitly teach wherein polyethylene selected from the group consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) of Claim 12, and wherein the polyolefin is a very low density polyethylene (VLDPE) having a density from 0.870 to 0.910 g/cm3 of Claim 13.
Nevertheless, Brown teaches bauxite flame-retardant fillers for insulators or sheathing comprising polymers and flame retardant aluminum trihydrate particles in the range of 0.3–5.0 µm and that are surfaced treated with fatty acid derivatives [Abstract; Column 4, Lines 59-62; Column 5, Lines 10-12]. Brown further teaches:
High density polyethylene [Column 3, Lines 8-12], thereby reading on the high density polyethylene of Claim 12; and
Ultra-low density polyethylene [Column 3, Lines 8-12], which McKeen teaches has a density of 0.890-0.905 g/cm3, thereby corresponding to the very low density polyethylene having a density from 0.870 to 0.910 g/cm3 of Claim 13.
Brown offers the motivation that polyethylenes are especially preferred polymer because of their ability to form metallocenes [Column 5, Lines 38-42].
Rocktaeschel and Brown are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of flame-retardant polyethylene compositions comprising bauxite with surface treated aluminum hydroxide.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyethylene of Brown with the composition of Rocktaeschel, with the motivation to form metallocenes, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rigge et al. (US 4216130 A) teaches bauxite as flame-retardant filler for polymer compositions [Abstract] comprising surface modification of bauxite with surface area less than 12 m2/g [Abstract], and a particle size of less than 3 µm [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights