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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 29, 2025.
Claims 8-20 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are canceled.
Claims 8-16, 18-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al in view of Tsigdinos et al.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (JP 2013-010861) in view of Asano et al (US Patent Application 2002/0102429).
Regarding claims 8-16, 18-19, Takahashi et al teaches a resin composition comprising a resin, silica and hydrous zinc molybdate (Paragraph 7). Takahashi et al further teaches the hydrous zinc molybdate has the formula Zn3Mo2O8(OH)2 (which satisfies 100wt% of the zinc dimolybdate hydroxide is present as crystalline form) (Paragraph 8) having an average particle diameter of 0.5-2µm in order to have good dispersibility (Paragraph 18). Takahashi et al further teaches an epoxy resin (Paragraph 11). Takahashi et al further teaches the composition may optionally comprise fillers, flame retardants, thermoplastic resins, antioxidants, UV absorbers (Paragraph 20). However, Takahashi et al fails to specifically disclose the hydrous zinc molybdate is on silica support, the d100, d10 and d90/d10/d50 ratio, the amount of the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate in the epoxy resin as parts per 100 resin and 4-16wt% of zinc and 3-20wt% of molybdenum in silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate.
In the same field of endeavor, Asano et al teaches a composition comprising epoxy, an inorganic filler and a fire retardant comprising zinc molybdate carried on spherical silica having a mean particle diameter of 0.2-20µm and a specific surface area of 1-20 m2/g (Abstract) in order to provide the smoke reducing and charring effect while providing a fire retardant that is well dispersible (Paragraph 12). Asano et al further teaches the amount of zinc molybdate on the spherical silica is 1-50% by weight (Paragraph 15). Asano et al further teaches 1-300 parts of the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate per 100 parts epoxy resin (Paragraph 16).
With regard to the hydrous zinc molybdate is on silica support, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the hydrous zinc molybdate per 100 parts epoxy resin in Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al in order to provide the smoke reducing and charring effect while providing a fire retardant that is well dispersible (Paragraph 12) as taught in Asano et al, wherein the objective of Takahashi et al is to provide hydrous zinc molybdate with good dispersability.
With regard to d100, d10 and d90/d10/d50 ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the d100, d10 and d90/d10/d50 ratio in Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al because Asano et al teaches overlapping ranges for the D50 particle size and adjusting the particle size within this range to provide the claimed values of d100, d10 and d90/d10/d50 would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
With regard to the amount of the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate in the epoxy resin as parts per 100 resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the amount of the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate per 100 parts resin as Asano et al teaches overlapping ranges; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to 4-16wt% of zinc and 3-20wt% of molybdenum in silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have provided 4-16wt% of zinc and 3-20wt% of molybdenum in silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate in Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al as Asano et al teaches 1-50wt% of the hydrous zinc molybdate in the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate, wherein Zn3Mo2O8(OH)2 comprises 27.6wt% of zinc and 27 wt% of molybdenum, hence, this ranges overlaps the instantly claimed range; a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to the process of making the silica supported hydrous zinc molybdate, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (JP 2013-010861) in view of Asano et al (US Patent Application 2002/0102429) as applied to claims 8-16, 18-19 above, and in further view of Tsigdinos et al (EP0054742 (already of record)).
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi et al and Asano et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Takahashi et al and Asano et al teach the features above. However, Takahashi et al and Asano et al fail to specifically disclose PVC.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsigdinos et al teaches a smoke suppressed or plasticized polyvinyl chloride polymer composition comprising a smoke suppressant comprising Zn3Mo2O9 H2O (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a polymer composition comprising the hydrous zinc molybdate is on silica support and PVC in Takahashi et al and Asano et al in view of Tsigdinos et al because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Takahashi et al in view of Asano et al, Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation that a silica mean particle diameter of 0.2-20µm would have a d100 of 0.6-10µm and it’s impossible to have a d50 of 10-20µm and a d100 of 0.6-10µm. Applicant argues Takahashi et al and Asano et al fail to teach a span of 1.5 to 5. Applicant argues impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments as Asano et al teaches the mean particle diameter is 0.2-20µm and preferably 0.3-10µm; hence, the mean particle diameter is within this claimed range. It would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide all particles within this range. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding 10-20µm, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as this is not even within the preferred range taught in Asano et al. Furthermore, Asano et al teaches the shape, particle diameter and distribution of the silica are crucial for achieving fire retardance and maintaining or enhancing the moldability of the resin composition (Paragraph 13). Asano et al further discourages particles smaller than 0.2µm and greater than 20µm (Paragraph 14). Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). As recited above and in the previous office action, Asano et al teaches overlapping ranges for the D50 particle size and adjusting the particle size within this range to provide the claimed values of d100, d10 and d90/d10/d50 would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The rejection is maintained absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with regard to the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 March 10, 2026