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 responds to the amended claim set filed 02/21/2023 and the response to Restriction Requirement filed 10/17/2025. Claims 1-23 are current pending. Applicant elected claims 17-21, which are dependent on claims 1, 9 and 11. Therefore, claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-21 are under examination.
Non-elected claims 2-8, 10, 12-16 and 22-23 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-21 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III claims 17-21 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be an undue burden to search all of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement is based on lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Crook et al. (GB1413172).
Regarding claim 1, Crook teaches aryloxy-s-triazine compounds having a general formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
267
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R may be an OX group, an arylene dioxy group, or an arylene trioxy group; X, Y and Z each independently represent unsubstituted aryl groups or aryl groups having one or more alkoxy groups (page 1, right column, lines 1-60). The general formula is easily configured into the instant formula (1). Additionally, Crook discloses compounds of:
PNG
media_image2.png
249
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(example 10) and
PNG
media_image3.png
380
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(example 20). Each of the two compounds contains the structure of the instant formula (1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Crook teaches the compounds being stabilizer for polymer materials. (page 1, left column, lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 17-20, Crook teaches polypropylene composition comprising polypropylene and the stabilizer (Example 1).
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hitomi et al. (WO2019013261 A1, citing US2020/0180957 A1 as English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Hitomi teaches compounds C-52, C-53, C-54 and C-55 (P34). Each of the compounds contains structure of the instant formula ( 1).
Regarding Claims 9, 11 and 17-18, Hitomi teaches compounds being a surface modifier for inorganic nitride (claim 1) which forms a composition with a synthetic resin (claims 11-14).
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hitetoshi et al. (JPS6343918 A).
Hitetoshi teaches a composition comprising an epoxy resin, filler, flame retardant and flame retardant aid wherein the flame retardant (a) contains the structure reading on instant formula (1) (Table 1).
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN104725665 A).
Li teaches s-triazine structure-containing flame retardant compounds. The compounds contain a structure reading the instant claimed formula (1) (claim 1). Li further teaches the flame retardant compounds form a composition with epoxy resin or ABS resin (Claim 9).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. (Mol. Cryst Liq Cryst, 1997, vol. 308, 133-146).
Wen discloses compounds having the structure of instant formula (1) (p136, Scheme 1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mormann et al. (Liquid Crystals, 1995, Vol. 19, No. 4 481-488).
Mormann discloses a compound having the structure of instant formula (1) (p487).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shaswat et al. (J. of Materials Chemistry B, vol. 3, no. 28, 9 ).
Shaswat discloses a hyperbranched epoxy having the structure of instant formula (1) (Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US2021/0304916 A1) in view of Crook et al. (GB1413172), cited at para. 7 above.
Lee teaches a composition comprising a blend of polyethylene and a polyolefin elastomer ([0012]), suitable polyolefin elastomers include an ethylene-propylene rubber ("EPR"), and ethylene-propylene-diene monomer ("EPDM"), or combinations thereof ([0015]). Lee further teaches that the composition comprising a UV stabilizer which includes triazines ([0026]).
The difference between Lee and instant Claim 21 is that Lee is silent on the UV stabilizer is a compound having the claimed structure.
However, Crook teaches a UV stabilizer being a triazine compound (page 1, left column, lines 29-32) wherein the triazine compound comprises the structure reading on the claimed formula (see para. 7 above). Crook further teaches the triazine compound is a suitable UV stabilizer for polyethylene and polypropylene materials (page 2, the bottom left column to the top right column). In view of such teaching, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of instant application, to use the triazine compounds taught by Crook in the composition of Lee because the compounds are suitable UV stabilizers for the polyethylene and polypropylene materials.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonacchi et al. (WO2019/016322 A1) in view of Hitomi et al. (WO2019013261 A1), cited at para. 8 above.
Bonacchi teaches a polymer composition comprising carbon black (claim 10), additives, such as boron nitride and aluminum nitride (claim 11) and polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomers such as low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, or polypropylene (claim 12).
The difference between Bonacchi and instant Claim 21 is that Bonacchi is silent on the composition comprising a compound having the structure of instant formula (1).
However, Hitomi teaches a polymer composition comprising a cured polymer and surface-modified inorganic nitride (claim 12); wherein the inorganic nitride includes boron nitride and
aluminum nitride (claim 9) and the surface-modifier compound has the structure of instant formula (1) (see the discussion at para. 8). Hitomi further teaches the surface-modification improving dispersibility of the inorganic nitride compounds, consequently, the thermal conductive properties also being improved ([0062-0063]). In view of such benefits, one ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of instant application, to use the triazine compound taught by Hitomi to make a modified composition comprising the surface-modified inorganic nitride which has a better dispersibility, consequently, the modified composition may have improved thermal conductivity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN101838440B) in view of Hitetoshi et al. (JPS6343918 A), cited at para. 9 above.
Liu teaches an epoxy resin composition comprising carboxyl-terminated butadiene-acrylonitrile modified epoxy resin and a nitrogen containing fire retardant (ab.). The carboxyl-terminated butadiene-acrylonitrile modified epoxy resin is an epoxy elastomer (p6, lns169-177).
The difference between Liu and instant Claim 21 is that Liu is silent on the nitrogen containing fire retardant having the structure of instant formula (1).
However, Hitetoshi a composition comprising an epoxy resin and a flame retardant having the structure of instant formula (1) (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled artisan before the effective filing date of instant application to use the flame retardant taught by Hitetoshi for the composition of Liu to obtain a modified composition because Hitetoshi teaches the flame retardant is suitable for an epoxy resin composition.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN101838440B) in view of Li et al. (CN104725665 A), cited at para. 10 above.
Liu teaches an epoxy resin composition comprising carboxyl-terminated butadiene-acrylonitrile modified epoxy resin and a nitrogen containing fire retardant (ab.). The carboxyl-terminated butadiene-acrylonitrile modified epoxy resin is an epoxy elastomer (p6, lns169-177).
The difference between Liu and instant Claim 21 is that Liu is silent on the nitrogen containing fire retardant having the structure of instant formula (1).
However, Li teaches a composition comprising an epoxy resin and a flame retardant having the structure of instant formula (1) (claim 9). It would have been obvious to one skilled artisan before the effective filing date of instant application to use the flame retardant taught by Li for the composition of Liu to obtain a modified composition because Li teaches the flame retardant is suitable for an epoxy resin composition.
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