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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026, has been entered.
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.
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, 3-7 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto (WO2018150755, herein Muto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 1, Muto teaches flame retardant resin composition comprising: flame retardants including: melamine polyphosphate [0067] reads on (A-1), piperazine polyphosphate [0067] reads on (A-2), both further read on component (A) phosphoric acid salt-based flame retardant, in the range of 1 to 50 parts by mass, per 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin [0067];
Muto expressly identifies melamine polyphosphate [0067] and piperazine polyphosphate [0067] as suitable materials for use in the same capacity as the materials included in the examples.
It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Regarding (A-1)/(A-2) ratio, Muto does not expressly disclose the claimed ratio. Nevertheless, the obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that mixing equivalent components in a 1:1 ratio represented no more than application of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill” in the art. Ex parte Swanzy, Appeal 2017-004875 at 8-9.
In this case, Muto discloses melamine polyphosphate [0067] and piperazine polyphosphate [0067] as equally suitable alternatives to one another and therefore recognizes the equivalence of the two. It would have would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, logic, judgment, and common sense, to combine polyphosphate [0067] and piperazine polyphosphate [0067] in equal amounts (i.e. in a 1:1 ratio) based on the fact that both are disclosed in parallel as being equally suitable for use in this capacity. This 1:1 ratio falls within the claimed ratio, hence, lie in the claimed range.
Muto teaches lithium-2,2'-methylenebis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphate [0066], in the range of 0.05 to 10 parts by mass, by mass, per 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin [0066], structure see below, meet component (B) and formula (1), wherein R1-R4 represent alkyl groups having 4 carbon atoms; R5 represents an alkanediyl group having 1 carbon atom, which collectively meet the claimed R1-R5 ranges. m=0, n=1 and Li metal combination, match the claimed n is 1 and m is 0 when M1 represents an Li metal.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ranges as taught by Muto can lead to the (B)/(A)= 0.05/50=0.1% to 0.05/1=5%, hence, lie in the claimed range of 0.05 to 5 parts by mass of the following component (B) based on 100 parts by mass of the following component (A).
Regarding Claims 3, 4, Muto teaches fatty acid metal salts [0076], and Examples of fatty acid metal salts include saturated fatty acids such as stearic acid, metal salts of fatty acids include alkali metals [0077], including sodium, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select stearic acid, and alkali metals [0077], such as sodium, form the specific fatty acid metal salts as sodium stearate, structure see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
150
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
matches the claimed formula (2), R4 represents a group derived from a linear or branched aliphatic organic acid having 17 carbon atoms; p=1; lie in the claimed ranges, and M is Na (alkali metal), and further apply this specific fatty acid metal salt into the composition formation process, because doing so would lead to the suitability of processing aid from the specific fatty acid metal salt.
Regarding Claim 5, Muto teaches lubricant, 0.01 to 2 parts by mass [0068], lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 6, Muto teaches the resin composition with low anisotropy in shrinkage rate [0016] used in applications of automotive materials [0085], collectively meet the synthetic resin composition excellent in shrinkage balance during molding [Instant App. US20230092624; 0029], in the application of automobile interior and exterior materials [Instant App. US20230092624; 0162]. Regard to the shrinkage factor ratio, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s).
However, Muto teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Muto teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of injection molding [0085]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, instant application specification discloses injection molding [Instant App. US20230092624; 161]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the shrinkage factor would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "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). 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. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 7, Muto teaches “molded article can be obtained” [0085].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights