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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 8-10, 13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 4 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 is/are pending with claim(s) 5, 8-10, 13 and 20 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-19 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 8/24/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Hisashi does not disclose zinc oxide or a silane coupling agent.
In response, Hisashi does disclose zinc oxide or a silane coupling agent, as stated in the 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisashi et al (US 20070176154 A1) in view of Ottenheijm (US 20030055152 A1), Olson et al (US 20220063238 A1), Papakonstantinou et al (US 20220017415 A1), and Meada (US 20090264573 A1). ChemSrc (Piperazine Pyrohosphate”, 2025-08-26) is cited as evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Hisashi teaches a flame-retardant composition comprising piperazine pyrophosphate (A) and melamine polyphosphate (B) [abstract].
Piperazine pyrophosphate (A) has the following structure, as evidenced by ChemSrc:
PNG
media_image1.png
91
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed Formula (2) wherein the claimed Y1 is piperazine.
Hisashi is silent about the claimed Formula (I) for the melamine polyphosphate (B).
In the same field of endeavor, Ottenheijm teaches a flame-retardant system (B) comprising melamine polyphosphate PMP-100 (Nissan Chemical Industries) [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the PMP-100 as the melamine polyphosphate in Hisachi’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
As evidenced by the applicant, PMP-100 reads on the claimed phosphate compound represented by Formula (1) [P35 “Composition A2” spec.].
Hisashi is silent about the claimed equation (I) relating loose bulk density, D10 and D50 of the flame-retardant system.
In the same field of endeavor, Olson teaches a flame-retardant mineral having particle size distribution with D50 of about 75-150 micron and D10 of about 40-70 micron [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a flame-retardant system according to Ottenheijm having particle size distribution with D50 of about 75-150 micron and D10 of about 40-70 micron, as Olson demonstrates this range to be suitable for a flame-retardant material. This represents the use of a suitable range of D50 and D10 in a flame-retardant system similar to those of Olson and used in similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
In the same field of endeavor, Papakonstantinou teaches a flame-retardant material comprising an expandable material having a loose bulk density of about 15-450 kg/m3 [0012, 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a flame-retardant system according to Ottenheijm having a loose bulk density of about 15-450 kg/m3 (0.015-0.45 g/cm3) as Papakonstantinou demonstrates this range to be suitable for a flame-retardant material. This represents the use of a suitable range of loose bulk density in a flame-retardant system similar to those of Papakonstantinou and used in similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
When d=0.015-0.45 g/cm3, D50=75-150 micron and D10=40-70 micron, d/(D50-D10) = 0.0001-0.09, as calculated by the examiner, overlapping the claimed equation (I) of 0.030 ≤ d/(D50-D10) ≤ 0.110. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Hisashi teaches that the flame retardant composition further comprises inorganic flame retardant as auxiliary agent, including zinc oxide [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select zinc oxide as the auxiliary agent in Hisashi’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Hisashi teaches that the flame retardant composition comprises silicone oil for surface treatment of flame retardant (e.g., zinc oxide) in order to suppress aggregation [abstract, 0010, 0034, Table 1]. Hisashi does not mention silane coupling agent.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches a flame-retardant composition comprising silane coupling agent or silicone oil for surface treatment in for miscibility of inorganic flame retardant [0045].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Maeda recognized silicone oil and silane coupling agent are equivalent for the same purpose of surface treatment of flame regardant, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute silicone oil with silane coupling agent in Hisashi’s composition.
Regarding claim 2, the density of d=0.015-0.45 g/cm3 overlaps the claimed equation (II) of 0.20 ≤ d ≤ 0.80. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claims 3, 6-7, 11-19, the PMP-100 meets the claimed Formula (1); and the piperazine pyrophosphate meets the claimed Formula (2) as stated above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
