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 .
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, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108493874A) in view of Wang et al. (Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 2275-2280).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5: 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 degree of polymerization for the ammonium polyphosphate.
However, Wang et al. teach that an ammonium polyphosphate with a degree of polymerization of 184 has the best fire protection (P. 2280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a degree of polymerization of 184 as taught by Wang et al. as the degree of polymerization for the ammonium polyphosphate of Chen to provide the best fire protection.
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].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108493874A) and Wang et al. (Surface & Coatings Technology 206 (2012) 2275-2280) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Yoshimura (2006/0241229).
Chen teaches that the composition is for a flame-retardant coating [0025-0027].
Chen fails to specify a particle size of the ammonium polyphosphate.
However, Yoshimura teach an ammonium polyphosphate for a flame-retardant coating [0002], and that the ammonium polyphosphate has a particle size of 8 microns [0122].
Since Chen is silent on the particle size of the ammonium polyphosphate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a particle size of 8 microns as taught by Yoshimura et al. as the particle size of the ammonium polyphosphate of Chen. It would have been obvious to use an art tested particle size for the ammonium polyphosphate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 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 alleged that the disclosure of Wang et al. teaches away from using the claimed degree of polymerization. This is not persuasive, because in the conclusions of Wang et al., they teach: “The results showed that the coating that used APP with DP of 184 has the best fire protection in our research.” (p. 2280).
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 is > 1000.
The applicant does not have any comparative examples where the degree of polymerization is below the claimed range.
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.
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