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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108493874A) in view of Huusken (2002/0013391).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6: Chen teaches a composition comprising 12 parts ammonium polyphosphate and 4 parts of a dispersant [0059], providing a ratio of ammonium polyphosphate to dispersant of 3:1. Chen teaches three possible dispersants [0071; 0155]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select sodium hexametaphosphate (also known as sodium tetrapolyphosphate) as the dispersant in the composition of Chen.
Chen fails to teach a particular ammonium polyphosphate.
However, Huusken teaches a flame retardant coating, and that FR Cros 484 is a commercially available ammonium polyphosphate, and is a highly suitable flame retardant additive, which gives good results in weathering tests [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use FR Cros 484 as taught by Huusken ammonium polyphosphate is Chen to provide a commercially available ammonium polyphosphate that is a highly suitable flame retardant additive, and provides good weatherability. Since FR Cros 484 is the same ammonium polyphosphate use in the instant example, it will possess the claimed degree of polymerization and grain size.
Regarding claim 8: Chen teaches 0 wt% halogen and metals having the claimed density [Examples].
Regarding claim 9: Chen teaches a waterborne hydroxyl acrylic resin [0027].
Relevant Art
The FR Cros 484 Technical Data Sheet discloses that the degree of polymerization is greater than 1000, and the D50 is 15 microns max (page 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has made the argument that there is no suggestion that the salts could chemically interact with the APP lattice to solubilize the polymer. It is initially noted, that the claimed composition does not comprise a polymer. Furthermore, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144.
The applicant has stated that the amended degree of polymerization is not taught by the prior art. This has been remedied by the addition of Huusken (2002/0013391).
The applicant has alleged the unexpected results of improved transparency. This is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided. The instant specification does not cite the DP of FR-Cross 484, but it is > 1000.
The applicant does not have any comparative examples where the degree of polymerization is below the claimed range.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights