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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-18: is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashina (WO 2006/090751) in view of Saito et al. (JP 2001-139586) and Kenji et al. (JP 2016-510075A).
Regarding claims 1-8, 10-12, and 16-18: Harashina teaches a thermoplastic molding composition comprising 100 parts (A-1) polybutylene terephthalate with an intrinsic viscosity of 0.85, 10 parts (B-1) Poly (pentabromobenzyl acrylate) FR1025, 1.5 parts polytetrafluoroethylene, 25 parts of (C-6) organic phosphorous compound, and 70 parts of other additives [Example 16; Table 2]. Example 16 of Harashina is completely free of diantimony trioxide. Harashina teaches that their composition is for electric/electronic parts [0002]
Harashina fails to teach the claimed organic phosphorus compound.
However, Saito et al. teach that the claimed organic phosphorus compound [0025-0027] is a flame retardant for polymer compositions that is particularly suited for electronic materials [Examples; 0050].
Kenji et al. Teach that the claimed organic phosphorus compound (compound IId) is an effective flame retardant or polybutylene terephthalate composition [Claim 1; 0008, 0043, 0082; Examples].
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 organic phosphorus compound of Saito et al. and Kenji et al. as the organic phosphorus flame retardant in Harashina to provide an effective flame retardant that is well suited for electronic articles.
Regarding claim 9: Harashina teaches that the amount of polytetrafluorethylene is about 0.01 to 15 parts by weight [0096]. With the 10 parts (B-1) Poly (pentabromobenzyl acrylate) [Examples], this provides ranges that overlap the ranges of claim 9.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13: Poly (pentabromobenzyl acrylate) FR1025 has the following structure, wherein n is greater than 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Saito et al. teach that the claimed organic phosphorus compound [0025-0027] is a flame retardant for polymer compositions that is particularly suited for electronic materials [Examples; 0050].
Kenji et al. Teach that the claimed organic phosphorus compound (compound IId) is an effective flame retardant or polybutylene terephthalate composition [Claim 1; 0008, 0043, 0082; Examples].
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 organic phosphorus compound of Saito et al. and Kenji et al. as the organic phosphorus flame retardant in Harashina to provide an effective flame retardant that is well suited for electronic articles.
The Applicant has alleged that Harashina does not disclose removal or minimizing of antimony-containing compounds. This is not persuasive because Harashina teaches examples that do not contain an antimony compound.
The Applicant has alleged that there is no disclosure in Saito that the flame retardant would work in combination with the components in Harashina. This is not persuasive because there is no evidence that the flame retardant would not function in Harashina. It is expected that combining different phosphorus flame retardants would supplement each other. It is obvious to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function; it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. In re Crockett 126 USPQ 186.
The Applicant has also made the argument that the skilled artisan would not have know to use the claimed range of 0.5 to 20 wt%. This is not persuasive because 0.5 to 20 wt% is a very broad range for a flame retardant, and Harashina already teaches 25 parts of (C-6) an organic phosphorous compound.
In response to applicant's argument that the skilled artisan would not have removed melamine from Leistner, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, Harashina already teaches (C-6) an organic phosphorous compound without a melamine compound. Also, the claims do not exclude the presence of a melamine compound.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ling-Siu Choi can be reached on 571-272-1098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763