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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichio et al (JP 2001 031831, please see machine translation for mapping) in view of Chaudhary et al (US 2017/0121514) and Onder (US 2002/0156225).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Koichio teaches a method of forming a polymeric composition, comprising the steps of melt blending an ethylene-silane copolymer (page 6 and page 3) and a halogen free flame retardant masterbatch (page 6) comprising a halogen free flame retardant (page 4) dispersed in an ethylene vinyl acetate (page 3) to form the polymeric composition (page 6). The ethylene silane copolymer is random copolymer of units derived from ethylene and vinyl trimethoxysilane (page 3).
However, Koichio fails to teach a) the amount of the vinyl trimethoxysilane and b) the processing the polymeric composition into a plurality of particles.
Regarding a) above, Chaudhary teaches a polymeric composition (Abstract) comprising an ethylene-silane copolymer ([0022]) which incorporates 0.5 to 10 % by weight of the hydrolysable silane monomer ([0023]) such as vinyl trimethoxysilane ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ethylene silane polymer of Koichio have the amount of hydrolysable silane monomer as taught by Chaudhary. One would have been motivated to do so in order that the crosslinking proceeds appropriately (Chaudhary, [0070]).
Regarding b) above, Onder teaches that polymeric materials can be extruded ([0040]) or granulated ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the composition of Koichio and granulate it as taught by Onder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having easier storage or bulk shipping (Onder, [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Koichio teaches that in the nonhalogen flame retardant masterbatch, the ethylene vinyl acetate is 100 parts by weight and the flame retardant can range from 50 to 500 parts by weight (page 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Koichio teaches that the melt blending can occur at 125 C (Chaudhary, Examples).
Regarding claim 7, Koichio teaches that the flame retardant is a metal hydroxide (Abstract).
Regarding claims 8-10, Koichio teaches a composition with the following components:
100 parts of the ethylene silane
100 parts of the flame retardant masterbatch
The flame retardant masterbatch comprises:
40 parts ethylene-vinyl acetate
60 parts ethylene-ethyl acrylate
300 magnesium hydroxide (flame retardant)
0.5 parts cibutyltin dilaurate.
This means that the total parts by weight of the composition is 200.5. The ethylene silane polymer is then present in the amount of 49.8 % and the flame retardant is present in the amount 37.4 % by weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 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 L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights