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 claim set filed 03/25/2026. Claims 1, 17-20, 29-30, 33-42 are pending. Claims 2-16, 12-28, 31-32 are cancelled. The non-elected claims 33, 36-37, 40 and 42 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 17-20, 30, 34-35, 38-39 and 41 are under consideration in this Office Action.
The USC 102 and 103 rejections dated 01/09/2026 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 17-20, 30, 34-35, 38-39 and 41 are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 03/25/2026. In particular, formula (1) has been deleted the groups disclosed in the references recited in the Office Action dated 01/09/2026. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Li et
al. (CN101786637 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches melamine salts obtained by reacting a melamine derivative of 2-
benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine with hydrochloric acid (example 6). The structure of 2-
benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine is
PNG
media_image1.png
218
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. The structure reads on the instant claimed formula (1) wherein A=benzene, Y= “C=O,” x=melamine, n=1. The instant Claim 1 claims “wherein if: X is melamine, and A is absent, and Y is C=O or oxalyl, then n is 2-500.” In the case of 2-
benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine, A is not absent.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75 are not positively stated by Li. However, Li teaches the compound of 2-benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine salt that reads on the claimed formula. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75 outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75, would naturally arise and be achieved by a compound meeting the claimed formula. "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 the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding Claim 30, Li teaches material comprising the salt of 2-
benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 38, Li teaches layered clay comprising the salt of 2-
benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine ([0011]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 17-20, 30, 34-35, 38-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN101786637 A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 34, Li teaches melamine salt compounds formed by reacting melamine
derivative compounds with an inorganic acid ( claim 1 ), wherein the melamine salt compounds have a
general formula of:
PNG
media_image2.png
82
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and Y1, Y2 and Y3 may be hydrogen and n=0-30 (claim 2). Therefore, the melamine salt can be a salt of melamine homopolymer that reads on the instant claimed formula wherein A and Y are absent, n=1 to 31.
Additionally, Li teaches that melamine and its derivative reacting with inorganic acid forms small molecular weight polymers and Li exemplifies that 2-benzamide-4,6-diamino-s-triazine is one of melamine derivative compounds. Therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer a reaction product having the structure of the instant Compound E.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75 are not positively stated by Li However, the Li teaches a compound reading on the claimed formula. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75 outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed TGA25, TGA50 and TGA75, would naturally arise and be achieved by a compound meeting the claimed formula. "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 the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding Claims 17-20, Li teaches that melamine salt compounds including melamine pyrophosphate and melamine polyphosphate (claim 8).
Regarding Claim 35, as discussed in Claim 34, Li discloses a compound reading on the instant claimed Compound E; the Compound E polyphosphate reads on the instant claimed Compound E-S1, Compound E pyrophosphate reads on the instant claimed Compound E-S2.
Regarding Claim 39, Li teaches layered clay comprising melamine salt (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 41, Li teaches that layered clay may also comprises fillers, such as talc, kaolinite, etc. ([0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17-20, 30, 34-35, 38-39 and 41 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 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
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights