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 .
This communication is responsive to the claims and Remarks filed on 7/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
The 35 USC 102 (a) (2) rejections dated 04/20/2026 at para. 6 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-20 are rejected for the reasons set forth below. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 7/20/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to further limit α-olefin of the copolymer (C ) having a number of carbon atoms of 10 or more. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a previous Office Action.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al.
(US2023/0068325 A1; EFD: 2020-01-20).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-4, Nakamura teaches a flame-retardant resin composition comprising a synthetic resin, a phosphate-based flame retardant, and acid-modified polyolefins (claim 8); wherein the specific examples of synthetic resin include olefin-based resins, such as polypropylene ([0107]), reading on the claimed thermoplastic resins; wherein the preferred phosphate-based flame retardants include melamine pyrophosphate and piperazine pyrophosphate (Examples 2-2 and 2-3); and wherein the acid-modified polyolefins are preferable maleic anhydride-modified polyolefins ([0017]) having a weight average molecular weight of 1,000 to 500,000 ([0018]), encompassing the claimed 2,000 to 50,000. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nakamura, i.e. a weight average molecular weight of 2,000 to 50,000.
Nakamura further teaches that the acid-modified polyolefins are copolymers of maleic anhydride and polyolefin ([0040]); wherein the polyolefins are obtained from polymerizing or copolymerizing one or more α-olefin having 10 to 12 carbon atoms monomers, such as 1-decene, 1-dodecene and 1, 11-dodecadiene ([0042]). Although Nakamura does not teach α-olefin of copolymer (C ) having 10 to 12 carbon atoms in a specific example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to use a copolymer deriving from an α-olefin having 10 to 12 carbon atoms in Nakamura 's composition, since they are clearly named in the reference.
Nakamura exemplifies a mass ratio of phosphorus-containing flame retardants to thermoplastic resin being 48% (Examples 2-2 and 2-3), falling within the claimed 5% by mass to 400% by mass.
Moreover, Nakamura teaches the content of the acid-modified polyolefins in in the range of 0.5 to 75 parts per 100 parts flame retardants ([0051]), i. e. a weight ratio of acid-modified polyolefins to phosphate-based flame retardant being 0.5% to 75% by mass, overlapping the claimed 10% or less. Nakamura exemplifies a weight ratio of an acid-modified polyolefin to flame retardant agents being 3.1% (Examples 2-2 and 2-3), therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to prefer the lower portion of 0.5% to 75%.
Regarding Claims 2, 15-17, Nakamura exemplifies that the synthetic resin being polypropylene resin and being used at 66.7 wt.% of the flame-retardant composition (Examples 2-2 and 2-3), falling within the claimed ranges of Claims 2 and 15-17.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakamura teaches a molded product comprising the flame-retardant resin
composition (claim 11).
Regarding Claims 6-8, the limitations have been addressed in Claims 2-4 above.
Regarding Claims 9-11, the limitations have been addressed in claims 2-4 and 5.
Regarding Claims 12-14, as discussed in Claim 1, Nakamura exemplifies a mass ratio of phosphorus-containing flame retardants to thermoplastic resin being 48% (Examples 2-2 and 2-3), falling within the claimed ranges of Claims 12-14.
Regarding Claim 18, Nakamura teaches the alpha-olefin has carbon numbers of 10-12.
Regarding Claim 19, Nakamura teaches the content of acid-modified polyolefin with 100 parts of the phosphate flame retardants being 0.5 to 75 parts. Thus, amount of acid-modified polyolefin in Examples 2-2 and 2-3 can be as low as 0.16 parts and the mass ratio of acid-modified polyolefin to the total mass of the resin composition can be as low as about 0.16%, falling within the claimed 0.01% by mass to 0.5% by mass.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki et al. (JP2002146204 A) in view of Nakamura et al. (US2023/0068325 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Masaki teaches a thermoplastic resin composition comprising thermoplastic resins (claim 1), a phosphate flame retardant ([0075]), and an acid-modified olefin wax as lubricant ([0128]); wherein the thermoplastic resins include polyethylene or polypropylene ([0042]). Masaki exemplifies thermoplastic resins being used at 84 parts per composition (Examples 6-8). Attention is drawn to Example 8, wherein the composition contains 84 parts polycarbonate, 16 parts glass fiber, 8 parts flame retardant triphenyl phosphate, 0.5 parts Diacarna PA30M (acid-modified olefin lubricant), 0.5 parts releasing agent and 0.4 parts drip inhibitor. Although the thermoplastic resin of Example 8 is exclusively polycarbonate, Masaki teaches the thermoplastic resin component A comprising component a1 and component a2 (claim 1) and the component a2 can be polyethylene or polypropylene ([0042]), thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a modified Example 8 composition contain 84 parts thermoplastic resins including polyethylene or polypropylene, 16 parts glass fiber, 8 parts flame retardant triphenyl phosphate, 0.5 parts Diacarna PA30M, 0.5 parts releasing agent and 0.4 parts drip inhibitor.
Diacarna PA30M is one of the preferred acid-modified polyolefins of the instant Application, therefore, the MW and numbers of carbon atoms of olefin are met. The modified Example 8 composition has a ratio of triphenyl phosphate to thermoplastic resin of 9.5%, falling within the claimed 5 to 400% by mass. The modified Example 8 composition has a ratio of Diacarna PA30M to triphenyl phosphate of 6.25%, falling within the claimed 10% or less.
The difference between Masaki and the instant Claim 1 is that Masaki is silent on that the flame retardant can be melamine or piperazine phosphorus-containing flame retardant.
However, Nakamura teaches a flame-retardant resin composition comprising a synthetic resin, a phosphate-based flame retardant, and acid-modified polyolefins (claim 8); wherein the synthetic resin can be polycarbonate ([0107]) and wherein the phosphate-based flame retardant can be a melamine or piperazine phosphorus-containing compound (ab). Therefore, Nakamura teaches that melamine or piperazine phosphorus-containing compound is a suitable flame-retardant compound for a polycarbonate-containing thermoplastic composition.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled artisan to replace triphenyl phosphate of Masaki with a melamine or piperazine phosphorus-containing compound taught by Nakamura to obtain a further modified composition because triphenyl phosphate and melamine or piperazine phosphate compounds are flame retardant compounds taught by prior art, the replacement is a simple substitution of one known element for another (MPEP 2143 IB). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15-17, as discussed in Claim 1, the further modified composition comprising 84 parts thermoplastic resins to 109.4 parts of total mass (Example 8), therefore, the proportion of the thermoplastic resins to a total mass of the resin composition is 76.8%, falling within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claims 3, 6, 18 and 20, Diacarna PA30M is one of the preferred acid-modified polyolefins of the instant Application, therefore, the limitations are met.
Regarding Claims 4, 7, 8, Masaki teaches the composition may comprising polyethylene resin or polypropylene resin ([0042]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9-11, Masaki teaches a molded article made from the resin composition (ti.).
Regarding Claim 12, the further modified Example 8 composition has a ratio of the phosphorus-containing flame retardant to thermoplastic resin of 9.5% by mass, the ratio close to the claimed 10%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (See MPEP2144.05 I).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Masaki teaches the composition comprising 50 to 95 parts by weight of a thermoplastic resin (component A) and 5 to 50 parts glass flakes (component B) (claim 1). Masaki further teaches that the flame retardant is preferably used in an amount of about 0.01 to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total of the components A and B ([0075]). Therefore, the ratio of the phosphorus-containing flame retardant to the thermoplastic resin is from 0.005% by mass to 19% by mass, overlapping or close to the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 19, the Example 8 composition of Masaki has a mass ratio of PA30M to the total mass composition of 0.46% by mass, falling within the claimed 0.01% to 0.5% by mass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on the 35 USC 102 rejection are fully considered but moot because the rejection is WITHDRAWN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights