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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/4/2025 has been entered.
Claims 18, 20-28, 30-32 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 18, 20-28, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalita et al. (US 2015/0210865, cited in IDS filed 5/2/22) in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0090468).
Regarding claim 18: Kalita is directed to a flame retardant polymer composition produced by the following steps:
a) producing a nanohybrid flame retardant composition wherein the nanohybrid flame retardant composition comprises:
a composite architecture with nanosized metallic deposits including copper nanoparticles on inorganic crystals of ammonium polyphosphate and wherein the composite can also include a protecting barrier of silicon dioxide ([0013]-[0016]). While a specific combination of metallic copper nanoparticles, ammonium polyphosphate, and SiO2 is not mentioned in a single composite, selection of such a composite is well within the skill level of one skilled in the art since Kalita discloses finite number of identified, predictable options and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
b) incorporating and reinforcing polymer or copolymer matrix with nanohybrid flame retardant compositions,
wherein said nanohybrid flame retardant composition exhibits temperature adaptive flame retardant behavior ([0019]).
Specifically, a complex comprising releasable phosphorous or nitrogen and a plurality of metallic deposits on the complex of crystals that are flame retardant and can be chemically and mechanically applied to polymer or copolymer textile substrates (see abstract and Claim 1 of Kalita).
The polymer includes a variety polymers including polyesters, polymeric components, paints, coatings etc. ([0021]), although a specific polymer of claim 18 is not specifically mentioned.
Chen is directed to a flame retardant composition wherein the composition comprises acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) copolymer, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), nylon, polycarbonate(PC), and polyurethane ([0017] Chen).
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the polymers of Chen as the polymers of choice in Kalita since Kalita already mentions polymers in the composition, and Chen lists specific polymers that are commonly used with a flame retardant compositions. Selection of a specific polymer of Chen in Kalita is well within the skill level of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected the polymers of Chen as the polymer of choice in Kalita to arrive at claim 18 of the present invention.
Regarding claim 20: Chen lists polymers of thermoplastic or thermosets of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) copolymer, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate(PC), and polyurethane ([0017] Chen).
Regarding claim 21: The process can be accomplished in semi-solid, i.e. can include a melt of nylon and the inorganic composite ([0023]).
Regarding claim 22: A solid textile fabric is disclosed throughout Kalita.
Regarding claim 23: Example 2 comprises adding a liquid homogeneous solution to resin A and applied as a coating to nylon ([0033] Kalita).
Regarding claim 24: Example 2 yields a composition having the treated nylon yielded durable flame resistance and greater than 99 .99% antimicrobial efficacy ([0033] Kalita).
Regarding claim 25: Kalita doesn’t mention any specific amounts of the copper, ammonium polyphosphate or silicon dioxide. However, Kalita teaches the inorganic barrier of titanium dioxide is added to decrease flammability and improve thermal stability ([0016] Kalita). Further, the copper is added such that is lowers the char layer temperature ([0019] Kalita). Finally, the ammonium polyphosphate (APP) is added to provide the char layer ([0019] Kalita).
Case law state “where the 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 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934). Further, case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
In the present case, the claimed amount of copper, APP and silicon dioxide is a matter of routing experimentation since the relative amounts result in the same advantages of the present invention, i.e. flammability, thermal stability, a char layer as well as antimicrobial properties (abstract Kalita). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have optimized the relative amounts of copper, APP and silicon dioxide to arrive at the claimed amounts. Further, adjusting the amounts of copper, APP and silicon dioxide is well within the skill level of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected an amount of copper, APP and silicon dioxide within the scope of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26: Kalita doesn’t mention relative amounts of polymer and flame retardant composition.
Chen discloses the amount of flame retardant composition comprises 5-35 parts per 100 parts of the composition. It follows the composition comprises 20-99 wt% polymer and 1-80 wt% of the nanohybrid flame retardant composition. Hence, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the amount of polymer and flame retardant composition in Kalita for improved mechanical strength ([0037] Chen). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have selected the amount taught in Chen as the relative amounts of polymer and flame retardant composition in Kalita.
Regarding claim 27: The metallic deposits are in the range of 5-100 nm ([0018]).
Regarding claim 28: Chen lists polymers of polypropylene.
Regarding claim 30-32: Chen lists polymers including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate(PC) and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) copolymer ([0017] Chen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 4-5 Remarks) claims 19 and 29 have been cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (p. 5-6 Remarks) the combination of Chen and Kalita does not teach “producing a nanohybrid flame retardant composition, wherein the nanohybrid flame retardant composition comprises: copper nanoparticles on ammonium polyphosphate-SiO2 particles” and “incorporating the nanohybrid flame retardant composition into one or more polymers, wherein the polymers are selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyurethane, polyethylene, PVC, polycarbonate, ABS, and PBT” because it would not be obvious to combine Chen and Kalita. The issue of inadequate flame retardance is common to virtually all polymers, thus if merely combining a flame retardant with a polymer as taught in the prior art rendered subsequent combinations of flame retardants and polymers obvious, Chen itself would not have been granted. To that end, Chen teaches the combination of a polymer with a flame retardant that is vastly than the claimed nanohybrid flame retardant of the present invention. Specifically, the sulfur-phosphorous compounds thought by Chen are totally dissimilar to the nanohybrid to the nanohybrid flame retardants of the present invention and have different chemistry, meaning one skilled in the art would not reasonably expect success upon combining the polymers of Chen with a nanohybrid flame retardant.
This argument is not found persuasive since Kalita specifically teaches the composition is applied to substrates including polymer. Chen was relied on for including specific polymers to which flame retardants are typically applied. The sulfur-phosphorous compounds thought by Chen are not relevant since the combination of Kalita and Chen does not require including the entire composition of Chen in Kalita. Rather, Chen is relied on to show specific polymers to which a flame retardant is applied. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (p. 7-11 Remarks) Chen further teaches significantly more narrow value range for the ratio of flame retardant to polymer, underscoring the composition taught in Chen rather than the claimed composition of a nanohybrid flame retardant with a polymer. This increased range demonstrates the different chemical properties and capabilities
This argument is not found persuasive since the specific amounts of flame retardants in Chen are not relevant to selection of a specific polymer in Kalita. Selection of specific substrates in Kalita from the teachings of Chen does not require the amounts of flame retardants in Chen to be within a certain amount.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764