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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9 and 11 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al in view of Roth in view of Zhou et al in view of DeWit is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (US Patent Application 2021/0332231 (already of record)) in view of Roth (WO Patent 2008/119693 (already of record)) in view of Zhou et al (CN106243638 (already of record)) in view of De Wit (US Patent Application 2005/0137297 (already of record)), and in further view of Huang et al (CN112143181) or Deng (CN103772919).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, Miyamoto et al teaches a resin composition comprising 100 parts by weight of a polyester resin (A), 2-20 parts by weight of a compatibilizer (C), 0.01-5 parts of (E) a nucleating agent, 1-100 parts of (F) filler, preferably a glass chopped type strand fiber, 1-50 parts of a flame retardants including phosphorus or nitrogen containing flame retardants and an antioxidant (Paragraphs 24, 98-101, 104, 107, 111-112, 188). Miyamoto et al further teaches the compatibilizer can be a copolymer of an ethylene and a glycidyl methacrylate (Paragraphs 65-66). Miyamoto et al further teaches a PET polymer pellets with viscosity of 0.65 (Paragraph 134, Examples). Miyamoto et al further teaches the chopped strand glass fibers can be surface treated, have function as a reinforcement fiber and have diameters preferably from 5-15 µm (Paragraph 105). However, Miyamoto et al fails to disclose the weight percentages of the components in the material as instantly claimed, a halogen free composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite and MCA at 3:1-1:1 weight ratio, sodium salt organic nucleating agents and titanium dioxide nucleating agents, hindered phenol antioxidants and phosphite antioxidants, siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length and PET having a viscosity of 0.70-0.84.
In the same field of endeavor, Roth teaches flame retardant polymer compositions comprising polymers such as polyesters (Abstract). Roth further teaches the addition of additives in the amount of 0.05-5wt% including antioxidants (Pg. 31, Lines 27-28); antioxidants including phenol antioxidants and phosphite antioxidants (Pgs. 23-29). Roth further teaches nucleating agents including titanium dioxide and organic compounds sodium benzoate salts (Pg. 30).
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou et al teaches a flame retardant composition comprising a PBT resin and halogen free composite flame retardant (Abstract) comprising a halogen free composite flame retardant comprising pentaerythritol diphosphate melamine salt, melamine cyanurate, aluminum hypophosphite and triphenyl phosphate in a 2-10:1-8:10-30:1-5 weight ratio in order to provide effective flame retardant effect with only a small amount of the material and without affecting the mechanical properties of the polymer composition (Paragraph 23).
In the same field of endeavor, De Wit teaches a flame-resistant polyester material comprising reinforcing filler such as glass fibers with a siloxane surfactant treatment compatible with the polymer (Paragraph 22). De Wit further teaches glass fibers having a diameter of from about 10-20µm and filamentous glass in the form of chopped strands of 1/8-2 inches (which overlaps the claimed 3-4mm and satisfies claimed rod shaped) (Paragraph 22).
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al (Abstract) and Deng (Abstract) teach glass fiber reinforced PET composition. Huang et al teaches PET with a viscosity of 0.6-0.8 in order to prevent poor mechanical properties and processing difficulties (Paragraph 19). Deng teaches PET with a viscosity of 0.65-0.82 in order to provide good processing performance and excellent mechanical properties.
With regard to the amounts of the components in the material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have provided the amounts of each component as instantly claimed in Miyamoto et al in view of Roth as Miyamoto et al teaches overlapping amounts of each component in the material, for example, a material comprising 100 parts (A), 20-280 parts (B-1 and B-2), 2-20 parts (C), 0.2-5 parts (D), 0.01-5 parts (E), 1-100 parts (F) and Roth teaches 0.05-5wt% of antioxidants in the composition. For example, a composition comprising 100 parts PET, 30 parts (B-1 and B-2), 5 parts (C), 1 part (D), 2 parts (E), 59 parts (F), 1 parts antioxidant and 22 parts flame retardant, equals 45% PET, 2.2wt% of compatibilizer, 0.9wt% nucleating agent, 10wt% flame retardant, 0.45wt% antioxidant and 26wt% glass fiber. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to a halogen free composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite and MCA at 3:1-1:1 weight ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a halogen free composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite and MCA at 3:1-1:1 ratio in Miyamoto et al, Roth and De Wit in view of Zhou et al in order to provide effective flame retardant effect with only a small amount of the material and without affecting the mechanical properties of the polymer composition as taught in Zhou et al and the broad teachings of Miyamoto et al encompass a flame retardant including phosphorus and nitrogen containing compounds that can be mixed in combination of two or more. Simple substation of one known flame retardant for a flame retardant composite would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
With regard to sodium salt organic nucleating agents and titanium dioxide nucleating agents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted/provided the sodium salt organic nucleating agents or titanium dioxide in Miyamoto et al, Zhou et al and De Wit in view of Roth in order to regulate the crystallinity of the polymers and Miyamoto et al encompasses the incorporation of nucleating agents.
With regard to hindered phenol antioxidants and phosphite antioxidants, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the hindered phenol and phosphite antioxidants in Miyamoto et al in view of Roth to provide stabilization properties to the material and Miyamoto et al encompasses the incorporation of antioxidants.
With regard to siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length in Miyamoto et al, Roth and Zhou et al in view of De Wit in order to provide a surface treatment on the glass fibers to enhance combability in the polymer composition as taught in De Wit and the broad teachings of Miyamoto et al encompass chopped strand glass fibers can be surface treated, have function as a reinforcement fiber and have diameters preferably from 5-15 µm.
With regard to a viscosity of 0.70-0.84, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a viscosity of 0.70-0.84 in Miyamoto et al in view of Huang et al and Deng in order to provide good processing performance and excellent mechanical properties as taught in Huang et al and Deng. The ranges taught in Huang et al and Deng overlap the instantly claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN103333469 (already of record, translation provided)) in view of Yu et al (US Patent Application 2015/0141560) in view of Zhou et al (CN106243638 (already of record)) in view of De Wit (US Patent Application 2005/0137297 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, Xu et al teaches a halogen free flameproof PET material comprising 50-55wt% PET resin, 7-10wt% organic fire retardant, 1.5-2wt% inorganic combustion inhibitor, 1.5-3.5wt% of nucleating agent, 25-30wt% of glass fiber, 0-0.5wt% of antioxidant (Paragraphs 31-39). Xu et al further teaches PET with a viscosity from 0.61-0.72 (Paragraph 41). Xu et al further teaches long glass fibers (Paragraph 59). Xu et al further teaches phenol and phosphite antioxidants (Paragraph 48). Xu et al further teaches nucleating agent comprises long chain carboxylic acid salt and talc powder (Paragraph 44). Xu et al fails to disclose 2-5wt% of a compatibilizer, a composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite, MCA at 3:1-1:1 weight ratio, siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length and PET pellets.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu et al teaches a polyester resin having high flame resistance (Abstract). Yu et al further teaches 0.1-10wt% of a compatibilizing component including ethylene glycidyl methacrylate-methacrylate and ethylene glycidyl methacrylate copolymer (Paragraph 110-116). Yu et al further teaches PET pellets (Paragraph 143).
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou et al teaches a flame retardant composition comprising a PBT resin and halogen free composite flame retardant (Abstract) comprising a halogen free composite flame retardant comprising pentaerythritol diphosphate melamine salt, melamine cyanurate, aluminum hypophosphite and triphenyl phosphate in a 2-10:1-8:10-30:1-5 weight ratio in order to provide effective flame retardant effect with only a small amount of the material and without affecting the mechanical properties of the polymer composition (Paragraph 23).
In the same field of endeavor, De Wit teaches a flame-resistant polyester material comprising reinforcing filler such as glass fibers with a siloxane surfactant treatment compatible with the polymer (Paragraph 22). De Wit further teaches glass fibers having a diameter of from about 10-20µm and filamentous glass in the form of chopped strands of 1/8-2 inches (which overlaps the claimed 3-4mm and satisfies claimed rod shaped) (Paragraph 22).
With regard to the compatibilizer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided 2-5wt% of a compatibilizer in Xu et al, Zhou et al and DeWit et al in view of Yu et al in order to improve dispersion. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
With regard to a composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite and MCA at 3:1-1:1 weight ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composite flame retardant comprising hypophosphite and MCA at 3:1-1:1 ratio in Xu et al and De Wit in view of Zhou et al in order to provide effective flame retardant effect with only a small amount of the material and without affecting the mechanical properties of the polymer composition as taught in Zhou et al and the broad teachings of Xu et al encompass a flame retardant comprising both organic and inorganic compounds.
With regard to siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a siloxane modified rod shaped glass fiber having 10-13µm and 3-4mm length in Xu et al and Zhou et al in view of De Wit in order to provide a surface treatment on the glass fibers to enhance combability in the polymer composition as taught in De Wit.
With regard to PET pellet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided PET as a pellet in Xu et al, Zhou et al and De Wit et al in view of Yu et al as it is well known in the art that PET is supplied in pellet form. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN103333469 (already of record, translation provided)) in view of Yu et al (US Patent Application 2015/0141560) in view of Zhou et al (CN106243638 (already of record)) in view of De Wit (US Patent Application 2005/0137297 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, 11 as applied above, and further in view of Roth (WO Patent 2008/119693 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 6-7, Xu et al, Yu et al, Zhou et al and De Wit disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Yu et al, Xu et al, Zhou et al and DeWit teach the features above. However, Yu et al, Xu et al, Zhou et al and De Wit fail to specifically disclose sodium salt organic nucleating agents and titanium dioxide nucleating agents.
In the same field of endeavor, Roth teaches flame retardant polymer compositions comprising polymers such as polyesters (Abstract). Roth further teaches the addition of additives in the amount of 0.05-5wt% including antioxidants (Pg. 31, Lines 27-28); antioxidants including phenol antioxidants and phosphite antioxidants (Pgs. 23-29). Roth further teaches nucleating agents including titanium dioxide and organic compounds sodium benzoate salts (Pg. 30).
With regard to sodium salt organic nucleating agents and titanium dioxide nucleating agents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted/provided the sodium salt organic nucleating agents or titanium dioxide in Xu et al, Zhou et al and De Wit in view of Roth in order to regulate the crystallinity of the polymers and Xu et al encompasses the incorporation of nucleating agents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Miyamoto et al only teaches a viscosity of 0.65, a new rejection has been applied above; however, this is only an example. A reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights