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
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 1-7 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima (US20190062527, herein Mizushima), in the view of Ishii (US20090156744, herein Ishii)
Regarding Claims 1, 2, Mizushima teaches flame retardant composition comprising:
component (A) phosphoric acid salt-based flame retardant “melamine phosphate” [0084] matches the claimed “melamine orthophosphate” as evidenced by [Instant Application-Specification_P8; L10] in the range of “based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin, 1 to 100 parts by mass” [0084],
Mizushima teaches “phosphoric acid ester compound represented by the general formula (1) is 0.001 to 10 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of a thermoplastic resin.” [0041] overlaps the claimed range, Mizushima does not teach the component (B) structure, however, Ishii teaches “crystal nucleator ingredient containing one or two or more kinds of compounds represented by the following general formula (I)” [0020], structure see below: “wherein R1 and R2 represent alkyl groups having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; R3 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; R4 represents an aliphatic group having 1 to 30 carbon atoms” [0021], which collectively 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.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mizushima and Ishii are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of polyamide resin based composite development via metal salts selection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute some or all of Mizushima’s sodium salt with Ishii’s lithium salt, as the two are recognized by the prior art as equivalents suitable for the same purpose (i.e. as nucleating agents in thermoplastic resin compositions). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding Claims 3, 4, Mizushima teaches “Sodium stearate” [0282] which reads on the claimed fatty acid metal salt, 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Mizushima teaches epoxy-based coupling agent “γ-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane” [0109] in the range of “the blending amount of the thermoplastic elastomer (C) is, based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin, 1 to 80 parts by mass” [0118] overlaps the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, 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, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. 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, Mizushima teaches “molded article can be obtained” [0127].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mizushima and Ishii.
Mizushima does not teach the component (B) structure, however, Ishii teaches “crystal nucleator ingredient containing one or two or more kinds of compounds represented by the following general formula (I)” [0020], structure see below: “wherein R1 and R2 represent alkyl groups having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; R3 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms; R4 represents an aliphatic group having 1 to 30 carbon atoms” [0021], which collectively 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
530
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/Z. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights