DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 7-16 and 18 and species of a polymerized product of pentaerythritol and ammonium polyphosphate in the reply filed on 7/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 10-13, 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein heating step” should be “wherein the heating step”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-9, 14-16, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “a waterless chain polymerization”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim 7 recites “heating the waterless chain polymerization from…”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim 9 recites “the melt contains: …”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim 16 recites “subsequently mixed into the melt”, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim 16 recites “…are simultaneously mixed and heated into the melt”, which is not supported by the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9, 14-16, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a waterless chain polymerization”. What is a waterless chain polymerization? Does waterless mean water is not used as a solvent and/or a reagent, or the final product does not contain water, or the reaction does not have water involved? What is a chain polymerization? In the art there is a term of “chain growth polymerization”, however, the reaction between ammonium polyphosphate and pentaerythritol is not a chain growth polymerization. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as the reagents are waterless.
Claim 7 recites “producing a waterless chain polymerization from ammonium polyphosphate and pentaerythritol”. Polymerization is a method of synthesis, therefore the expression “producing a waterless chain polymerization” is confusing. For purposes of expediting prosecution, it is interpreted as producing a reaction product from ammonium polyphosphate and pentaerythritol through polymerization.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the unheated entry components in the dry waterless state" and “the entry components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “is heated to the melt”, what does it mean?
Claim 16 recites “mixed into the melt”, what does it mean?
Claim 16 recites “mixed and heated into the melt”, what does it mean?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8-9, 14-16, 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the present claims are allowable over the closest references: Vakhitova et al (Solid-phase aminolysis in the ammonium polyphosphate-pentaerythritol amine system, Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry, Vol. 48, NO.3, July 2012). Vakhitova teachs a method of making a reaction product of ammonium polyphosphate-pentaerythritol. However, Vakhitova does not teach or fairly suggest the disintegrating step as claimed. In light of the above discussion, it is evident as to why the present claims are patentable over the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763