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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, “comprise” should be “comprises”.
In claim 22, please insert “or” between planetary-gear extruder” and “ring extruder”.
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 24, 25, 27-31 and 33 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 24, 25, 27-31 and 33, the phrases "preferably", “very particularly”, “especially”, “for instance” and “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is noted that since claim 32 ultimately or directly depends from claim 28, it is rejected along with claim 28 because it incorporates all of the limitations of claim 28, including those that are indefinite.
Claims 21 and 30 recites the limitations “organic phosphorus stabilizer” and “hindered phenolic antioxidant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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 20-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013136285 in view of Butz (US 2011/0257310).
WO ‘285 exemplifies preparing a composition by melt compounding the following components in a co-rotating twin-screw extruder: 84 wt% polypropylene and 1 wt% FR-1, shown below, and 15 wt% pentaerythritol-di-methylphosphonate, which meets the claimed phosphonate when R1 and R2 are methyl. (pp. 22-23, Example 4, Inv. 1, Table 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
127
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WO ‘285 teaches that the composition can include additional flame retardants, specifically listed to include melamine cyanurate (pp. 10-11), as well as 0.01-10 wt% of additives which include tetraalkylpiperidine derivatives, specifically listed to include 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine, which meets applicants’ formula (7) when E1 is a hydroxyl-substituted C4 alkoxy, and the “C15-C17alkyl” group is a C17 alkyl.
Butz teaches that dimethylspirophosphonate and melamine cyanurate provide a flame retardant synergistic mixture in polyolefins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added melamine cyanurate and 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine to the composition of WO ‘285, as these modification are clearly within the teachings of WO ‘285, and Butz teaches that the combination of dimethylspirophosphonate, which is the same as pentaerythritol-di-methylphosphonate, and melamine cyanurate provide a synergistic flame retardant mixture.
WO ‘285 in view of Butz is prima facie obvious over instant claims 20 and 26-27.
As to claims 22-25, WO ‘285 teaches the twin-screw extruder as contra-rotating and co-rotating, which is provided with at least one gas removal compartment to which a vacuum can be applied (p. 16, ll. 5-10). WO ‘285 teaches the screw length as 1-60 screw diameters and the rotational speed as 10-600 rotations per minute (rpm).
As to claims 28-33, WO ‘285 teaches that the additive components and optional further additives can also be added to the polymer in the form of a masterbatch or concentrate, which contains the components in a concentration of 1-80 wt% or 2-60 wt% incorporated into a polymer. Butz exemplifies the weight ratio of dimethylspirophosphonate to melamine cyanurate as 1:1 (Example 22).
The addition of 15 parts melamine cyanurate and 1-10 parts 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine to Example 4 is prima facie obvious and suggests a composition comprising about 59 parts polyolefin, 1 part FR-1, 15 parts phosphonate, 15 parts melamine cyanurate, and 10 parts 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine OR 68 parts polyolefin, 1 part FR-1, 15 parts phosphonate, 15 parts melamine cyanurate, and 1 part 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.
A masterbatch/concentrate comprising 60 wt% additive components suggests that comprising 40 wt% polyethylene. While maintaining the weight ratios described above, the masterbatch/concentrate would be required to comprise 40 wt% polyethylene, 22-28 wt% phosphonate, 22-28 wt% melamine cyanurate and 1-2 wt% FR-1 and 2-14 wt% of the claimed N-alkoxy hindered amine, 1-(2-hydroxy-2-methylpropoxy)-4-octadecanoyloxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights