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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 11-19) and species ii (X1 is a triazine derivative represented by Formula (1-A)) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the flame retardant resin composition of Group II and the molded article of Group III contain the flame retardant agent of elected Group I. As such, if the flame retardant agent of Group I is found to be novel and nonobvious the claims of Groups II and III would also necessarily be novel and nonobvious and should be rejoined at that time. This is not found persuasive because invention of Group I is not found to be novel.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 8-10, 13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking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.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenheijm (US 20030055152 A1) in view of Olson et al (US 20220063238 A1) and Papakonstantinou et al (US 20220017415 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ottenheijm teaches a flame-retardant system (B) comprising melamine polyphosphate PMP-100 (Nissan Chemical Industries) [0030].
As evidenced by the applicant, PMP-100 reads on the claimed phosphate compound represented by Formula (1) [P35 “Composition A2” spec.].
Ottenheijim 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).
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 and 11, melamine polyphosphate PMP-100 meets the claimed phosphate compound represented by Formula (1) where X1 is melamine.
Claim(s) 1-4, 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) and Papakonstantinou et al (US 20220017415 A1). ChemSrc (Piperazine Pyrohosphate”, 2025-08-26) is cited as evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Hisashi teaches a flame-retardant composition comprising melamine polyphosphate (B) and piperazine pyrophosphate (A) [abstract].
Hisashi is silent about the claimed Formula (I).
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).
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.
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 3-4, 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
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
Prosecution Insights