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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al in view of Roth is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al in view of Roth in view of De Wit is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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, 3-7, 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).
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 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). 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 and hindered phenol antioxidants and phosphite antioxidants.
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).
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 and Roth 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is 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)) Zhou et al (CN106243638) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11 above, and in further view of De Wit (US Patent Application 2005/0137297 (already of record)).
Regarding claim 10, Miyamoto et al, Roth and Zhou et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Miyamoto et al, Roth and Zhou et al teach the features above. However, Miyamoto et al and Roth fail to specifically disclose siloxane modified glass fiber.
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).
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 treated glass fiber in Miyamoto et al and Roth 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues unexpected results. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because the examples in the specification are of no probative value in determining patentability of claims since they do not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Fenn, 208 USPQ 470) CCPA 1981). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(b) III and 716.02(e). In the instant specification, it appears the flame retardant polyester material of the disclosure is compared with PBT+30%GF, unmodified PET and PET+30%GF, which is not illustrative of the closest prior art of record.
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 February 7, 2026