DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-6, 7-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200407550 (Zia et al.) in view of Patel et al. (US 2005/0154135).
Re claims 1-6, 8, and 17, Zia discloses a flame resistant composition comprising thermoplastic polymer such as polyamide [7, 17] and flame retardant composition comprising metal phosphinate and nitrogen-containing synergist [8]. The composition comprises 40% by weight or more thermoplastic polymer [7] and therefore 60% by weight or less flame retardant composition. The composition also comprises 2-55% by weight reinforcing fibers [70]
Zia does not disclose crosslinked thermoplastic vulcanizate as claimed.
Patel discloses a toughened polymer composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a thermoplastic vulcanizate component that comprises a rubber component in a matrix polymer [8]. The rubber component includes EPDM [17] and the matrix polymer includes polymer made from ethylene and propylene [20]. The thermoplastic vulcanizate comprises 10-60 wt.% elastomer and 40-90% ethylene-propylene copolymer [23]. The composition is impact resistant and has high Rockwell hardness [6].
In light of the motivation for using composition comprising thermoplastic polymer and a thermoplastic vulcanizate disclosed by Patel as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermoplastic vulcanizate of Patel with the thermoplastic polymer of Zia in amount, including that presently claimed, in order to produce a composition with desired impact resistant and Rockwell hardness.
Re claim 7, given that Zia in view of Patel disclose composition as claimed, the composition would inherently have Shore hardness as presently claimed.
Re claim 10, Zia discloses the composition comprises 5-30% by weight metal phosphinate such as aluminum diethyl phosphinate [25].
Re claims 11-13, Zia discloses the composition comprises 0.01-7% by weight nitrogen-containing synergist [8] that includes melamine such as melamine polyphosphate [28].
Re claim 18, given that Zia in view of Patel disclose composition as claimed, the composition would inherently have thermal shock resistance as presently claimed.
Re claim 19, given that Zia in view of Patel disclose composition as claimed, the composition would inherently have comparative tracking index as presently claimed.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200407550 (Zia et al.) in view of Patel et al. (US 2005/0154135) and further in view of Harashina (JP 2006265539).
Zia in view of Patel is relied upon above.
Re claims 9 and 14-15, Zia in view of Patel do not disclose polyamide or zinc borate as claimed.
Harashina disclose flame-retardant composition comprising polyamide including nylon 6 or nylon 66 [34-35] and zinc borate as an electrical improvement aid [104]. The composition has improved flame retardancy and excellent electrical properties [5].
In light of the motivation for using composition comprising nylon 6 or nylon 66 and zinc borate disclosed by Harashina as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nylon 6 or nylon 66 as the polyamide and to use zinc borate in the composition of Zia in view of Patel in order to produce a composition with improved flame retardancy and excellent electrical properties.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200407550 (Zia et al.) in view of Patel et al. (US 2005/0154135) and further in view of Takacs (US 2020/0347209).
Zia in view of Patel is relied upon above.
Re claim 16, Zia in view of Patel do not disclose compatibilizer as claimed.
Takacs disclose that thermoplastic vulcanizates comprise a compatibilizer including maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene to promote interfacial adhesion between the various components of the thermoplastic vulcanizate [95].
In light of the motivation for using compatibilizer including maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene disclosed by Takacs as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compatibilizer in the composition of Zia in view of Patel in order to produce a composition with good interfacial adhesion.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200407550 (Zia et al.) in view of Patel et al. (US 2005/0154135) and further in view of Van Der Burgt (US 2020/0198198).
Zia in view of Patel is relied upon above.
Re claims 20-21, Zia in view of Patel do not disclose overmolded article as claimed.
Van Der Burgt disclose plastic-metal hybrid formed by overmolding [1]. Th plastic part is formed from composition compositing polyamide [78-79] and flame retardant [84]. The plastic-metal hybrid is used to form connectors [100].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition of Zia to form plastic part of an overmolded plastic-metal hybrid including a connector and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights