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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are presently pending and under examination; claims 7 and 9-14 are canceled; claims 1 and 3-6 are amended.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
The objections to claims 1, 4 and 6 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
A new objection to claim 3 is present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1 and 8 over NAGARAJAN and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 4 over NAGARAJAN and claim 3 over NAGARAJAN in view of KREH are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 2 and 5-6 over NAGARAJAN in view of KREH are maintained; the rejections of claims 7 and 9-11 are moot as these claims have been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 10/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Foreign Reference 1 (BR 102015027742) in the information disclosure statement filed 01/23/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of this reference which is not in the English language. This reference therefore has not been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3 appears to contain typos; the formula “1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy)benzoyl-D-glucopyranose” contains an opening bracket but not a closing bracket, and it appears that it should read “1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy]benzoyl)-D-glucopyranose” (see claim 3 at lines 2-3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an ammonium polyphosphate component having a structure OH-PO2-O-[PO2-O]-PO2-OH” (see claim 1 at lines 3-4); however, this is not the structure of ammonium polyphosphate, as it does not include any ammonium groups, and it is also not clear whether or not [PO2-O] is meant to be a repeating unit, as it is in brackets but does not include anything to indicate that it is repeating. The scope of the claim is indefinite as it is not clear whether ammonium polyphosphate is actually required or whether the component must be only a phosphate having the recited structure.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation in claim 1 as meaning that the ammonium polyphosphate component has a structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
136
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in paragraph [0023] of the present specification. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the tannic acid component is 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy)benzoyl-D-glucopyranose” (see claim 3 at lines 1-3), and claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the tannic acid component consists of a polyphenol having a single central ring structure including one carbon atom and five carbon atoms, each of said five carbon atoms having a pendant group extending therefrom, and wherein every pendant group terminates with a galloyl moiety” (i.e., it consists of only one tannic acid component; see claim 8 at lines 1-4); however, claim 1, from which claims 3 and 8 depend, requires that the tannic acid component includes tannic acid and derivatives of tannic acid (see claim 1 at line 2). Claim 1 requires that the component includes both tannic acid and derivatives, while claim 3 requires that the component only includes tannic acid and no derivatives, and claim 8 requires that the component only includes one component and therefore cannot include both tannic acid and tannic acid derivatives. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not it is actually required that the tannic acid component also includes tannic acid derivatives.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 1 as though it recites “a tannic acid component having tannic acid and/or derivatives of tannic acid”, as this clarifies the scopes of claims 3 and 8. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites the limitation “a tannic acid component having tannic acid and derivatives of tannic acid” (see claim 1 at line 2), and claim 3 recites the further limitation “wherein the tannic acid component is 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy)benzoyl-D-glucopyranose” (see claim 3 at lines 1-3). Claim 1 requires that the component includes both tannic acid and derivatives, while claim 3 requires that the component only includes tannic acid and no derivatives. Claim 3 is therefore of improper dependent form as it fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites the limitation “a tannic acid component having tannic acid and derivatives of tannic acid” (see claim 1 at line 2), and claim 8 recites the further limitation “wherein the tannic acid component consists of a polyphenol having a single central ring structure including one carbon atom and five carbon atoms, each of said five carbon atoms having a pendant group extending therefrom, and wherein every pendant group terminates with a galloyl moiety” (i.e., it consists of only one tannic acid component; see claim 8 at lines 1-4). Claim 1 requires that the component includes both tannic acid and derivatives, while claim 8 requires that the component only includes one component and therefore cannot include both tannic acid and tannic acid derivatives. Claim 8 is therefore of improper dependent form as it fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0016445-A1) (hereinafter, “NAGARAJAN”) in view of Kreh (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0263042-A1) (hereinafter, “KREH”) (it is noted that KREH incorporates Nugent, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,119-A) (hereinafter, “NUGENT”) by reference, therefore the disclosure of NUGENT is considered part of the disclosure of KREH).
Regarding claim 1, NAGARAJAN teaches an intumescent coating composition (see NAGARAJAN generally at paragraphs [0007], [0017], [0046], [0053], [0067] and [0069], teaching an intumescent polymeric coating composition which consists of polymeric binder, a crosslinked polyphenol, and a flame retardant compound) consisting of:
a tannic acid component having tannic acid and/or derivatives of tannic acid (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], [0079] and [0085], teaching tannic acid terephthalate (TAT) as the crosslinked polyphenol);
a phosphorous-containing flame retardant component (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0053]-[0054] and [0057], teaching flame retardants having phosphorous-nitrogen bonds, such as melamine pyrophosphate, melamine ammonium polyphosphate, etc.);
and a polymeric binder system (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and [0051]-[0052], teaching the polymer which may be, e.g., epoxy resin);
wherein the composition does not contain melamine or melamine moieties (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0053]-[0057]; although the phosphorous-containing flame retardant can optionally be melamine or melamine derivatives, these are not required and the flame retardant can also be other compounds which do not contain melamine or melamine moieties, i.e., NAGARAJAN teaches compositions that do not contain any of melamine, melamine derivatives, boric acid, and boric acid derivatives); and
wherein, upon curing of the polymeric binder system, the tannic acid component and the ammonium polyphosphate component are encapsulated within a coating formed by the polymeric binder system (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046], [0053], [0067] and [0069]; the tannic acid component and ammonium polyphosphate component and polymeric binder system are combined and form a coating).
However, NAGARAJAN fails to explicitly teach that the phosphorous-containing flame retardant is ammonium polyphosphate which does not contain melamine or melamine moieties, having a structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
136
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is known in the art to use ammonium polyphosphate as a flame retardant in intumescent coatings; for example, KREH teaches an intumescent coating composition (see KREH at Abstract) comprising an intumescent (flame retardant) material, e.g., ammonium polyphosphate, melamine pyrophosphate, phosphate esters, borates, melamine, etc. (see KREH at paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composition of NAGARAJAN and by simply substituting the phosphorous-containing flame retardant (e.g., melamine borate, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine ammonium polyphosphate, etc.) of NAGARAJAN (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs 0053]-[0054] and [0057]) with ammonium polyphosphate as taught by KREH, as KREH teaches that these flame retardants may be used interchangeably for the same purpose in intumescent coating compositions (see KREH at paragraph [0026]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the organic phosphorous-containing flame retardant with ammonium polyphosphate with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a phosphorous-containing flame retardant which will enhance flame retardancy of the composition. Further, KREH teaches that ammonium polyphosphate is a known phosphorous-containing flame retardant in the art, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “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)”.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, NAGARAJAN in view of KREH teaches a composition according to claim 1 wherein the tannic acid component overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of between 10 and 50 wt.%, the polymeric binder system overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of between 15 and 65 wt.%, and the ammonium polyphosphate component forms a remaining weight of the composition (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046] and [0053], teaching combining the polyphenol with the polymer using 2 to 30% by weight of the polyphenol (tannic acid component) and the remainder polymer (i.e., 2 parts polyphenol and 98 parts polymer to 30 parts polyphenol and 70 parts polymer), then adding 1 to 40 parts by weight of the flame retardant (ammonium polyphosphate component); i.e., out of a total of 101 to 140 parts by weight total, the tannic acid component is 2/140 to 30/101 parts, or 1.4% to 29.7% by weight; the polymeric binder system is 70/140 to 98/101, or 50% to 97% by weight; and the remainder is the ammonium polyphosphate component).
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, NAGARAJAN in view of KREH teaches a composition according to claims 1 and 4 wherein the polymeric binder system is an epoxy binder (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
NAGARAJAN fails to explicitly teach that the epoxy binder is a two-part epoxy binder, as required by claim 2, which includes a curing agent, as required by claim 5.
However, it is known in the art to use two-part epoxy resins in intumescent coatings; for example, KREH teaches an intumescent coating composition (see KREH at Abstract) comprising a two-part epoxy resin, with one part having epoxy functionality and the other part being a hardener with amine functionality (see KREH at paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composition of NAGARAJAN by using the two-part epoxy resin taught by KREH as the epoxy resin of NAGARAJAN. One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a two-part epoxy resin with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a curable polymeric binder. Further, KREH teaches that two-part epoxy resins are known epoxy resins in the art, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “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)”.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, NAGARAJAN in view of KREH teaches a composition according to claim 5 wherein the one or more epoxy resins comprise an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of between 10 and 35 wt.% of the composition. As discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, NAGARAJAN teaches or 50% to 97% by weight of the polymeric binder system (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046] and [0053]), which as modified by KREH is a two-part epoxy. Depending on the ratio of epoxy to hardener used, this results in amounts of epoxy in the composition overlapping with the claimed range; e.g., KREH teaches that various ratios of epoxy to hardener may be used, such as an equivalent ratio range of epoxy to amine of from about 0.05:1 to about 10:1 can be used, which corresponds to a broad range of weight ratios (see KREH at paragraph [0028], incorporating NUGENT by reference; see NUGENT at col. 6, lines 60-66). E.g., for 50% by weight of the polymeric binder system, using an epoxy-to-hardener weight ratio of 1:1 would result in 25% epoxy in the composition, a weight ratio of 2:1 would result in 33% epoxy in the composition, etc., which fall within the claimed range of between 10 and 35 wt%.
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 8, NAGARAJAN teaches a composition according to claim 1 wherein the tannic acid component consists of a polyphenol having a single central ring structure including one carbon atom and five carbon atoms, each of said five carbon atoms having a pendant group extending therefrom, and wherein every pendant group terminates with a galloyl moiety (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is rejected as set forth above, but would be allowable if rewritten (i) to overcome the claim objection and the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections set forth above, and (ii) in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have considered it obvious to make the claimed coating composition wherein the tannic acid component is 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy]benzoyl)-D-glucopyranose as claimed.
NAGARAJAN discloses an intumescent coating composition (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0007], [0017], [0046], [0053], [0067] and [0069]) consisting of a tannic acid component (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], [0079] and [0085]), an ammonium polyphosphate component or a flame retardant which does not contain melamine or melamine moieties (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0053]-[0057]), and a polymeric binder system which is an epoxy binder (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046]-[0047] and [0051]-[0052]), wherein, upon curing of the polymeric binder system, the tannic acid component and the ammonium polyphosphate component are encapsulated within a coating formed by the polymeric binder system (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0046], [0053], [0067] and [0069]).
However, NAGARAJAN does not disclose or suggest: (i) a composition which includes an ammonium polyphosphate component and does not contain melamine or melamine moieties; (ii) an ammonium polyphosphate component which is ammonium phosphate; (iii) that the epoxy binder is a two-part epoxy binder; or (iv) that the tannic acid component is 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy]benzoyl)-D-glucopyranose. Regarding (iv), the composition of NAGARAJAN requires that the phenolic compound be a crosslinked polyphenol compound, e.g., tannic acid terephthalate (see NAGARAJAN at, e.g., Abstract and Example 1, paragraph [0079]); therefore, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace crosslinked tannic acid terephthalate with tannic acid, 1,2,3,4,6-penta-O-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-[(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoyl)oxy]benzoyl)-D-glucopyranose, in the composition of NAGARAJAN.
KREH discloses an intumescent coating composition (see KREH at Abstract) consisting of an ammonium polyphosphate component which is ammonium phosphate (see KREH at paragraph [0026]) and a polymeric binder system which is a two-part epoxy binder (see KREH at paragraph [0022]), wherein the intumescent coating composition does not contain melamine or melamine moieties (see KREH at paragraph [0026] and claims 1-2; the coating compositions disclosed by KREH include epoxy resin and an intumescent material; KREH does not disclose or suggest a composition including a combination of intumescent materials, and melamine is not required), and wherein, upon curing of the polymeric binder system, the ammonium polyphosphate component is encapsulated within a coating formed by the polymeric binder system (see KREH at Abstract and paragraph [0022]).
However, KREH does not disclose or suggest a tannic acid component.
Thus, it is clear that NAGARAJAN and KREH, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the composition of claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 1-6 and 8, under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for claims 3 and 8, and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1, 4 and 8 over NAGARAJAN in view of KREH as set forth above.
Applicant argues:
“Nagarajan does not specifically disclose a conventional intumescent coating… Nagarajan does not teach the use of ammonium polyphosphate as it is defined here. Instead, as part of a “secondary flame retardant”, Nagarajan suggested the possible use of melamine polyphosphates… or organic phosphates… Nagarajan fails to specifically identify ammonium phosphate” (see Remarks at pg. 7-8).
“Nagarajan's disclosure is so broad and all-encompassing that is doubtful a person of ordinary skill in the art would discern concreate teachings that motivate a person of ordinary skill to select the specific combination of elements claimed here… the specific combination of ingredients for those coatings… are far less evident… the categories are discrete classes of compounds, and nothing in Nagarajan fairly recommends the selection of one to the exclusion of others… a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to arrive at the combination of elements recited in the amended claims. That is, Nagarajan does not contain a meaningful teaching to limit its “bio-based polyphenols” to tannic acid components while simultaneously using ammonium phosphate and a polymeric binder but without relying on any melamine-based constituents… Nagarajan’s detailed discussion and examples fail to provide any motivation for a person of ordinary skill to focus on tannic acid compounds” (see Remarks at pg. 8-9).
“Nagarajan does not contain any teaching that the crosslinked polyphenol should be encapsulated in the polymeric binder system… Paragraph 61 proposed a polymer in which the crosslinked polyphenol is coated onto the surface of a wide variety of organic and/or inorganic particles… a skilled person might actually discern Nagarajan as indicating a preference for having the crosslinked polyphenol exposed rather than encapsulated… virtually all of the examples consider scenarios in which polyamide serves as the polymeric base. Insofar as claim 2 limits the invention here to epoxy resins, this would amount to a direct teaching away from the claims” (see Remarks at pg. 10).
“Kreh requires the use of multiple layers of epoxy that are each imparted with intumescent materials… Kreh appears to be representative of the prior art intumescent coatings described in applicant’s specification… Kreh does not contain any teaching or suggestion to exclude melamine” (see Remarks at pg. 10).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that NAGARAJAN does not specifically disclose an intumescent coating, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as NAGARAJAN explicitly discloses intumescent coatings (see NAGARAJAN at paragraphs [0067] and [0069]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that KREH does not teach or suggest to exclude melamine, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as KREH explicitly teaches a coating consisting of epoxy and an individual intumescent material selected from the group consisting of ammonium polyphosphate, melamine pyrophosphate, ethylenediamine phosphate, boric acid, limestone, titania, mineral solids, ceramic solids, glass solids, fibers, phosphate esters, borates, silica, melamine, tris(hydroxyethyl) isocyanurate, clays, polyhydroxy organic chemicals, carbon, expanded graphite, benzyl alcohol, alumina, phenols, polysulfides, tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol and similar chemicals (see KREH at paragraph [0026] and claims 1-2). KREH does not require melamine, and teaches many embodiments which do not use melamine; individually using any of the above listed materials other than melamine as the intumescent material excludes melamine.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As set forth in the rejection above, NAGARAJAN discloses intumescent coatings comprising a phosphorous-containing flame retardant component that does not have to include melamine, and KREH discloses intumescent coating compositions which use ammonium polyphosphate as the flame retardant component which may be used instead of melamine, and it is the combination of the references which renders the claimed invention obvious.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not obvious because NAGARAJAN includes other options for components other than the claimed components and teaches away from the claimed composition by including embodiments and examples which have features that differ from the claimed composition, the Examiner respectfully disagrees As discussed in MPEP § 2131.02(II), a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named, and as set forth in the rejection above, NAGARAJAN explicitly discloses tannic acid terephthalate and epoxy resin, and KREH explicitly discloses ammonium polyphosphate and epoxy resin. As discussed in MPEP §2123, patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.
Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
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 SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731