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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (WO 2013/100343) in view of Realinho et al. (“Flame retardancy effect of combined ammonium polyphosphate and aluminum diethyl phosphinate in acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene,” Polymer Degradation and Stability, 155: 208-219, 2018). For convenience, the citations below for Song et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included previously.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-7, Song et al. teaches is a flame-retardant thermoplastic resin composition comprising 100 parts by weight of a base resin containing about 10-90% by weight of an aromatic vinyl-based graft copolymer and about 10-90% by weight of an aromatic vinyl copolymer (matrix resin); and about 0.1 to 50 parts by weight of a phosphorus compound as a flame retardant (Page 1, lines 46-49). The aromatic vinyl-based graft copolymer is a graft acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (Page 6, lines 13-14) comprising from 5 to 65% by weight of the butadiene (rubber polymer), 30 to 94% by weight of the styrene (first aromatic vinyl-based monomer unit), and 1 to 20% by weight of the acrylonitrile (the first vinyl cyan-based monomer unit) (Page 2, lines 45-60). The aromatic vinyl copolymer is a styrene-acrylonitrile resin (Page 6, lines 16-17) comprising from 10 to 90% by weight of styrene (second aromatic vinyl-based monomer unit) and 10 to 90% by weight of acrylonitrile (second vinyl cyan-based monomer unit) (Page 3, lines 10-20).
Song et al. does not teach that the composition comprises a phosphorus-based flame-retardant composition comprising 30 to 70% by weight of Mn+(diethylphosphinate)-n, wherein M is a metal having an oxidation number of 2 to 5, and n is an integer of 2 to 5, and 30 to 70% by weight of ammonium polyphosphate. However, Realinho et al. teaches an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene composition comprising a 1:1 ratio of ammonium polyphosphate and diethyl aluminum phosphinate as a flame-retardant composition (Page 208, Introduction; Table 1). Song et al. and Realinho et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, namely that of flame-retardant acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene containing compositions. At the time of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the flame-retardant composition of a 1:1 ratio of ammonium polyphosphate and diethyl aluminum phosphinate, as taught by Realinho et al., as the flame retardant in the composition, as taught by Song et al., and would have been motivated to do so because the phosphorus compound of Song et al. and the phosphorus-based flame-retardant composition of Realinho et al. are art recognized equivalents used for the same purpose as flame retardants in acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene containing compositions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 8, Song et al. does not teach that a carbon-based charring agent is a required component of the composition.
Song et al. and Realinho et al. do not explicitly teach that the composition forms char when exposed to flames or fire. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., forming char, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 9, Song et al. and Realinho et al. do not explicitly teach that when the composition is exposed to flames or fire, that the polyphosphate derived from the ammonium polyphosphate and the metal ions derived from the metal diethylphosphinate form metallosupramolecular. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., forming metallosupramolecular, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 10, Song et al. and Realinho et al. do not explicitly teach that the resin composition has a flame-retardant rating of V-1 or higher at a thickness of 1.5 mm according to UL-94 V Test. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., a flame-retardant rating of V-1 or higher at a thickness of 1.5 mm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "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. See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 11, Song et al. teaches making molded articles from the resin composition (Page 5, lines 20-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the flame-retardant mechanism, i.e., the chemical process of how the flame retardancy is achieved, is different in Realinho et al. as compared to the instant invention. Further, since this mechanism is different, one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the claimed invention by combining the teachings of Song et al. and Realinho et al. This argument is unpersuasive. Independent claim 1 is directed to a resin composition comprising a matrix resin, a graft copolymer, and a phosphorus-based flame-retardant composition. If the prior art teaches, or renders obvious, a composition comprising the claimed limitations, then the claim is found to be not novel, or obvious, over that prior art. It is immaterial how the composition provides flame retardancy since the claim is not directed to that process. A composition claim is patentable based on what it is and not any process related thereto. In this case, as stated above, the combination of references teaches the claimed composition. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
As for the showing of superiority of the flame retardancy exhibited by the instant invention, the examples provided are not fully commiserate in scope with the claims and therefore are not proper evidence of any unexpected results. MPEP 716.02.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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 at 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767