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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded that only those references pertinent to the instant application need be submitted on an IDS. For example, the relevance of references WO 2011/111006 A2, “Device for the automatic injection of two doses of a medicament” and Kuznetsov, “The Great Dictionary of the Russian Language”, to the instant application is unclear.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2025, 6/2/2025, and 4/14/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Application Data Sheet on 4/9/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed 6/2/2025 and 4/14/2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “comprising”, “comprises”, and “said” are legalese. The abstract also uses phrases, such as “the present invention relates to”, which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the terms Elvaloy AC 1125, Polyglue GE300C, Tegomer 6264, DOW CORNINGTM AMB-12235 MASTERBATCH, FR4897, Ecopiren 3.5C, Queo 8201, Queo 8203, BORSTAR, Borsafe HE3490-LS-H, Borsafe HE3493-LS-H, Borlink LE7710, FR4802, FR4803, FR4807, FR6082, FR6083, FR4804, FR4450, FR4451, Tegomer V-Si-4042, Irganox 1010, and Tinuvin 783 FDL, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claims 1 and 5]: Claim 1 recites the claim limitation “a silicon fluid and/or silicone gum”, while claim 5 recites “a silicone fluid or silicone gum”. It is believed that claim 1 contains a typographical error and should read “a silicone fluid and/or silicone gum”. For examination purposes, these have been treated as recitations of the same component.
[Claim 10] the phrase “determined after conditioning of the test specimens for 240 h at 110°C according to ISO 527-1 and ISO 527-2” is missing a punctuation mark at the end.
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, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 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 claim 2, 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 2 recites the broad recitation “in the range of from 920 to 960 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of from 935 to 950 kg/m3” 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 5 recites “a silicone fluid or silicone gum”. It is unclear whether this is a new component or a recitation of the “silicon fluid and/or silicone gum” introduced in claim 1, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation has been treated as a recitation of the component first introduced in claim 1.
The limitation of “surface-treated with stearic acid” in claim 6 is unclear because neither the claim nor the specification defines a surface treatment protocol, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of “0 to 7.5 wt% of a carbon black masterbatch comprising 30 to 50 wt% carbon black (G) in a polyethylene based matrix, based on the total weight amount of the carbon black masterbatch” in combination with the limitation of “wherein all weight percentages are based on the total weight of the flame retardant polymer composition” in the same claim is indefinite. It is unclear which, if any, weight percentages in this claim are based on the weight of the carbon black masterbatch and which, if any, weight percentages are based on the weight of the flame retardant polymer composition, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
The limitation of “conditioning” in claim 10 is unclear because neither the claim nor the specification defines a conditioning protocol, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the test specimens". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the meaning of “The article according to claim 12 being a wire or cable comprising at least one layer comprising said flame retardant polymer composition comprising at least one layer comprising said flame retardant polymer composition” is unclear and indefinite. Dependent claim 14 is similarly rejected by its dependence on indefinite claim 13. For examination purposes, this claim has been interpreted as “The article according to claim 12 being a wire or cable comprising at least one layer comprising said flame retardant polymer composition”.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nillson et al (US 20220403149 A1, priority date 12/5/2019) in view of Liu et al (US 20230227636 A1, priority date 5/20/2020).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Nillson discloses a flame retardant polymer composition comprising, based on the total weight of the polymer composition: [0015]
(A) 2.0 to 49.8 wt% of a copolymer comprising ethyelene units and units selected from the group consisting of methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and mixtures thereof,
(B) 0.1 to 6.0 wt% of a polyethylene and/or polypropylene containing units originating from maleic acid anhydride,
(C) 0.1 to 5.0 wt% of a silicone fluid and/or a silicon gum,
(D) 50.0 to 70.0 wt% of a magnesium hydroxide,
(E) 0 to 17.0 wt% of ethylene and a C4 to C10 alpha olefin comonomer having a density in the range of 860 kg/m3 to 965 kg/m3 determined according to ISO 1183, and
Optionally, additives, preferably selected from the group consisting of slip agents, UV-stabilisers, antioxidants, additive carriers, nucleating agents, micas, and mixtures thereof, present at 0.01 to 5 wt% [0070-0072].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Nillson does not particularly disclose component (F) (18.0 to 35.0 wt% of a copolymer of ethylene and alpha olefin comonomer units having from 4 to 10 carbon atoms, which has a density of from 920 to 965 kg/m3, determined according to ISO 1183, and a melt flow rate of from 0.05 to 2.50 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133 at a temperature of 190°C and a load of 5.0 kg). Nillson also does not particularly disclose component (G) (0 to 8.0 wt% of carbon black).
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al (US 20230227636 A1) discloses a polyethylene composition for jacketing [0001] which comprises a 40% polyethylene-based carbon black masterbatch added at 6.3 wt% and discloses examples with carbon black contents from 1.2 to 1.9 wt% (Table 3). Liu also discloses a component (B) which reads on instant component (F), that is polyethylene-based, present in an amount of 25.0 to 88.0 wt% [0056], having a density of 940 to 970 kg/m3 [0058], with a melt flow rate of from 0.1 to 1.2 g/10 min [0057]. This polymeric component is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene or ethylene and 1-hexene [0133]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the polymer compositions for jacketing of cables and wires disclosed by Nillson and Liu, as the two are considered to be equivalents known for the same purpose. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson also discloses that component (A), in preferred embodiments, has a density determined according to ISO 1183 in the range of 920 to 960 kg/m3 [0033] and a melt flow rate determined according to ISO 1133 in the range of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min [0034]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Nillson discloses that all melt flow rate measurements were measured at 190°C [0099] but also discloses that loads of 2.16 kg and 21.6 kg were used [0099]. However, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses that component (A) in preferred embodiments further comprises units with hydrolysable silane-groups, wherein the units with hydrolysable silane-groups are preferably represented by formula (I) (identical to instant formula), wherein R1 preferably is an ethylenically unsaturated hydrocarbyl, hydrocarbyloxy or (meth)acryloxy hydrocarbyl group, each R2 preferably is independently an aliphatic saturated hydrocarbyl group, Y which may be the same or different, is preferably a hydrolysable organic group and q is 0, 1 or 2. The content of the comonomer units comprising a crosslinkable silane group is preferably 0.2 to 4 wt %, based on the overall weight of component (A) [0035].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses that Component (B), in preferred embodiments, has a density determined according to ISO 1183 in the range of 910 to 950 kg/m3 [0040] and a melt flow rate MFR2 determined according to ISO 1133 in the range of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min [0041] at 190°C [0099]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Nillson does not particularly disclose the load. However, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses that component (C), in preferred embodiments, is a silicone fluid or silicone gum selected from the group consisting of polysiloxane, preferably polydimethylsiloxane, and siloxanes containing alkoxy or alkyl functional groups and mixtures thereof [0045].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses that component (D) is preferably a ground or precipitated magnesium hydroxide [0052] whose surfaces have been treated with at least one fatty acid or metal salt thereof and particularly lists stearic acid [0057].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses that component (E) is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene [0063].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. It is noted that the instant application does not define nor specify the conditions involved in “conditioning”, rendering these limitations and resultant claimed properties indefinite. However, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Neither Nillson nor Liu particularly disclose the peak heat release rate or total smoke production of their flame retardant polymer compositions. However, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 14, and 15, the combination of Nillson and Liu discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Nillson further discloses wires or cables (articles) comprising at least one layer comprising the disclosed polymer composition [0001], which may be a jacketing layer [0090].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, and 24 of copending Application No. 17/773,972 (reference application) in view of Liu et al (US 20230227636 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the copending application claims a halogen-free flame retardant, the instant claims and specification do not mention the inclusion of any halogens. The copending application also claims that component (B) is made by copolymerizing and/or grafting of polyethylene with maleic acid anhydride, which the instant application discloses in the specification (page 5, lines 11-13). Additionally, the properties recited in instant claims 10 and 11 are inseparable from the claimed chemical composition, rendering them obvious in view of the copending application.
The copending application does not mention the inclusion of components (F) and (G) of the instant application, in either the specification or the claims, but it also does not teach away their inclusion. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Liu et al (US 20230227636 A1) discloses a polyethylene composition for jacketing [0001] which comprises a 40% polyethylene-based carbon black masterbatch added at 6.3 wt% and discloses examples with carbon black contents from 1.2 to 1.9 wt% (Table 3). Liu also discloses a component (B) which reads on instant component (F), that is polyethylene-based, present in an amount of 25.0 to 88.0 wt% [0056], having a density of 940 to 970 kg/m3 [0058], with a melt flow rate of from 0.1 to 1.2 g/10 min [0057]. This polymeric component is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene or ethylene and 1-hexene [0133]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As set forth in the above rejection 103 rejection with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the copending application with those of Liu prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the instantly claimed compositions from the claims of the copending application because any differences would have been expected to give only predictable results. The open language of the instant and copending claims encompasses any additional ingredients of the copending and instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al (US 20230203287 A1) discloses a polyethylene composition for jacketing which comprises a polyethylene-based carbon black masterbatch, a polymeric component which is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene or a copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene, and additives such as stabilizers, (e.g. antioxidant agents), metal scavengers and/or UV stabilizers, antistatic agents, and utilization agents.
Liu et al (US 20230242744 A1) discloses a polyethylene composition for jacketing which comprises a polyethylene-based carbon black masterbatch, a polymeric component which is preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene or a copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene, and additives such as stabilizers, (e.g. antioxidant agents), metal scavengers and/or UV stabilizers, antistatic agents, and utilization agents.
Sultan et al (EP 2199335 A1, copy attached) discloses a flame retardant polymer composition comprising an ethylene copolymer comprising polar comonomer units, a silicone-group containing compound which is preferably a silicone fluid or gum, an inorganic filler material, an ethylene homopolymer or a copolymer of ethylene with one or more other alpha-olefin comonomer units, and further additives such as a carbon black masterbatch, antioxidant, or UV stabilizers.
Shindo et al (JP 2002226641 A, English translation attached) discloses a flexible flame retardant resin composition and its use in electrical wires and cables as insulation, comprising at least one polymer selected from an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer and an ethylene-methyl methacrylate copolymer, an ethylene alpha olefin copolymer, a hydrogenated block copolymer, polypropylene, a polyolefin resin, and magnesium hydroxide which has been surface treated with a fatty acid or fatty acid salt.
Takaishi et al (JP 2005213480 A, English translation attached) discloses a flame retardant resin composition and electrical wires and cables coated with the same, comprising a polyolefin-based resin, a functionalized olefin polymer, calcium carbonate, and an inorganic flame retardant such as magnesium hydroxide which has been surface treated with a fatty acid or a metal salt or ester thereof, which may contain further additives such as stabilizers, antioxidants, UV absorbers, light stabilizers, antistatic agents, lubricants, processability improvers, fillers, dispersants, copper damage inhibitors, neutralizers, foaming agents, anti-bubble agents, colorants, carbon black, and the like.
Taki et al (JP 2012099412 A, English translation attached) discloses a wire formed by adding a metal hydrate, such as magnesium hydroxide, to a base resin comprising a polyethylene resin, ethylene copolymer resin, antioxidants, and a heavy metal deactivator.
Yamagishi et al (JP 2017057387 A, English translation attached) discloses a flame retardant resin composition and wire and cable using the same, comprising a polyolefin resin (such as HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, V-LDPEM L-LDPE, PE, PP, ethylene propylene copolymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer, ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer, and combinations thereof), a flame retardant such as magnesium hydroxide, a processability improver which is a low molecular weight silicone (such as dimethylsilicone, methylphenylsilicone, methylvinylsilicone, silicone powder, gum-like silicone oil, other silicone oils, and the like), and additives (such as an antioxidant, a processing aid, an ultraviolet absorber, a colorant, an antistatic agent, a dispersant, and other lubricants).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 ET.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights