DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 10/6/25. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to limit the bromination and the amount of brominating agent.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, the lower limit of the bromination is from 47%, however claim 1 has been amended to recite that the bromination is at least 50%. Thus, claim 2 extends the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106065038 (herein Bao).
In setting forth the instant rejection, a machine translation has been relied upon.
As to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14 Bao discloses a method (and brominated copolymers thereof) of brominating a polymer of styrene/butadiene/isoprene in a mass ratio of 30/5/65, thus 30 wt% styrenic monomer and 70 wt% conjugated diene (butadiene and isoprene) monomer. The weight average molecular weight was 95,000 g/mol (9.5*104). The amount of brominating gent was about 0.73 (deduced from mol% per isoprene unit of 0.8) and 63.4% of non aromatic double bonds were brominated (deduced from the brominating of butadiene of 7.3% and isoprene of 68.9%). See specifically example 4 of Bao. Also see generally paragraph 12-25 of the broader specification. The polymers are taught as flame retardants. See paragraph 2 and examples.
As to claims 9-10, the polymer is a block copolymer of blocks of polybutadiene and blocks of styrene. See abstract, paragraph 12 and examples.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106065038 (herein Bao) in view of US 8,202,945 (herein Vogel).
The discussion with respect to Bao set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claims 11-12, Bao is silent on a styrene butadiene styrene triblock copolymer and the claimed 1,2 butadiene content. However, Bao discloses that the method of bromination is suitable for application for producing flame retardants in similar polymers and discloses that controlling the amount of bromination and diene monomers (butadiene and isoprene) allows for excellent thermal stability, good compatibility, as well as good processing performance. See paragraph 56 and examples.
Vogel discloses similar polymers for use as flame retardants and methods of brominating them. See abstract and examples. Vogel discloses that the polymer is a triblock copolymers of styrene diene (e.g. butadiene and/or isoprene) styrene are suitable polymers to brominate. See col. 4, lines 33-48 and examples. Further, the 1,2-butadiene units are 81% (see example 8)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Bao to apply the teachings to other polymers taught as suitable for flame retardants such as the styrene butadiene styrene triblock copolymers with 81% 1,2 butadiene content of Vogel because they are also taught to have excellent thermal stability. See abstract of Vogel.
As to claim 13, Bao is silent on the claimed brominating agents.
Vogel teaches that the brominating agents may be phenyltrialkylammonium tribromide, which are advantageous because they are less expensive. See col. 5, lines 35-65.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Bao with the phenyltrialkylammonium tribromide brominating agent of Vogel because Vogel teaches that they are suitable replacement agents that may reduce cost and allow better control. See col. 5, lines 35-65, col. 3, lines 9-37 and examples.
As to claim 15, Bao is silent on the domains.
Vogel teaches that the brominated copolymers useful as flame retardants form domains of 5 microns or less, which allows for good dispersibility and blendability in blends. See paragraph bridging col. 10 to col. 11.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the method of Bao with forming polymers with domains less than 5 microns as suggested by Vogel because one would want to form blends with good dispersibility and blendability taught as suitable.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,202,945 (herein Vogel).
As to claims 1-2 and 4-14, Vogel discloses a method of producing a brominated copolymer flame retardant. See abstract and examples. Vogel discloses that the polymer is a triblock copolymers of styrene diene (e.g. butadiene and/or isoprene) styrene are suitable polymers to brominate. See col. 4, lines 33-48 and examples. Further, the 1,2-butadiene units are 81% (see example 8). Vogel discloses that the weight average molecular weight is at least 1000 g/mol and exemplified at about 130,000 g/mol. See col. 2, lines 35-50 and last paragraph in col. 4. Vogel discloses that the styrenic blocks are 10 to 95% and the butadiene are taught as 5 to 90% (see paragraph bridging col. 2-3), which are exemplified at 40 wt% styrene and 60 wt% butadiene. The brominating agent is taught in amounts of 0.5 to about 5 moles per mole of butadiene unit and exemplified at about 0.98. See col. 6, lines 5-15. Vogel teaches that the brominating agents may be phenyltrialkylammonium tribromide, which are advantageous because they are less expensive. See col. 5, lines 35-65.
The bromination of occurs at least 50% per butadiene units. See col. 6, lines 22-45. The amount can be easily adjusted by the time of the reaction. Thus, the difference between Vogel and the claimed invention is that at least 50% overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 65%. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Also see MPEP 2144.05 stating that when there is overlap with the claimed ranges and the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select any amount within the disclosed ranges, including amounts within the scope of the instant claims.
As to claim 15, Vogel teaches that the brominated copolymers useful as flame retardants form domains of 5 microns or less, which allows for good dispersibility and blendability in blends. See paragraph bridging col. 10 to col. 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM 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, Arrie 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
