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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135.
Considering Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 15: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant.
As shown by Gregor et al., the calcium alginate contains a mixture of calcium salt moieties and free acid moieties, as the capacity of alginate for calcium is one calcium ion per eight acid groups (Abstract). Thus the calcium alginate reads on both the polysaccharide having acidic groups and the polysaccharide having neutralized acidic groups.
Wang et al. does not teach the flame retardant as being 2 to 16 weight percent of the composition. However, the disclosed amount of 1 weight percent is sufficiently close to 2 weight percent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composition with 2 weight percent of flame retardant from the teachings of Wang et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have similar properties.
Considering Claims 4-6 and 11: Wang et al. teaches that the polysaccharide can be calcium alginate (Example 5). Alginic acid contains one carboxylic acid group per monosaccharide unit.
Considering Claim 14: Wang et al. teaches the thermoplastic resin as being polystyrene, which has a softening point of ~100 ºC.
Considering Claim 16: Wang et al. teaches a molded article made from the composition (Example 4).
Considering Claim 17: The term flame-retardant housing is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (CN 112080083). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 112080083.
Considering Claim 12: Wang et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as shown above.
Wang et al. does not teach adding a phosphate ester to the composition. However, Han et al. teaches adding a phosphate ester to an expandable styrene composition (pg. 5). Wang et al. and Han et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the phosphate ester of Han et al. to the composition of Wang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Han et al. suggests, to increase the fire retardancy of the composition (pg. 5).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2017/0313839)
Considering Claim 18: Wang et al. teaches the molded product of claim 16 as shown above.
Wang et al. does not teach an electronic device comprising the molded product. However, Guo et al. teaches using expanded foam moldings in electronic packaging (¶0124). Wang et al. and Guo et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the molding of Wang et al. in electronic packaging, as in Guo et al., and the motivation to do would have been, it is a known use for flame retardant expanded foams.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135.
Considering Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 15: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant.
As shown by Gregor et al., the calcium alginate contains a mixture of calcium salt moieties and free acid moieties, as the capacity of alginate for calcium is one calcium ion per eight acid groups (Abstract). Thus the calcium alginate reads on both the polysaccharide having acidic groups and the polysaccharide having neutralized acidic groups.
Wang et al. does not teach the flame retardant as being 2 to 16 weight percent of the composition. However, the disclosed amount of 1 weight percent is sufficiently close to 2 weight percent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composition with 2 weight percent of flame retardant from the teachings of Wang et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have similar properties.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) in view of Han et al. (CN 112080083) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135 and CN 112080083.
Considering Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant.
As shown by Gregor et al., the calcium alginate contains a mixture of calcium salt moieties and free acid moieties, as the capacity of alginate for calcium is one calcium ion per eight acid groups (Abstract). Thus the calcium alginate reads on both the polysaccharide having acidic groups and the polysaccharide having neutralized acidic groups.
Wang et al. does not teach adding a phosphate ester to the composition. However, Han et al. teaches adding 0.5 to 4.5 parts of a phosphate ester to an expandable styrene composition (pg. 5). Wang et al. and Han et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the phosphate ester of Han et al. to the composition of Wang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Han et al. suggests, to increase the fire retardancy of the composition (pg. 5).
Considering Claims 4-6 and 11: Wang et al. teaches that the alginic acid salt can be calcium alginate (Example 5). Alginic acid contains one carboxylic acid group per monosaccharide unit.
Considering Claim 14: Wang et al. teaches the thermoplastic resin as being polystyrene, which has a softening point of ~100 ºC.
Considering Claim 16: Wang et al. teaches a molded article made from the composition (Example 4).
Considering Claim 17: The term flame-retardant housing is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) in view of Han et al. (CN 112080083) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2017/0313839)
Considering Claim 18: Wang et al. teaches the molded product of claim 16 as shown above.
Wang et al. does not teach an electronic device comprising the molded product. However, Guo et al. teaches using expanded foam moldings in electronic packaging (¶0124). Wang et al. and Guo et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the molding of Wang et al. in electronic packaging, as in Guo et al., and the motivation to do would have been, it is a known use for flame retardant expanded foams.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) in view of Han et al. (CN 112080083) as evidenced by Gregor et al. (Wat, Res. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1319-1324, 1996). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135 and CN 112080083.
Considering Claim 19: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant.
As shown by Gregor et al., the calcium alginate contains a mixture of calcium salt moieties and free acid moieties, as the capacity of alginate for calcium is one calcium ion per eight acid groups (Abstract). Thus the calcium alginate reads on both the polysaccharide having acidic groups and the polysaccharide having neutralized acidic groups.
Wang et al. does not teach adding a phosphate ester to the composition. However, Han et al. teaches adding 0.5 to 4.5 parts of a phosphate ester to an expandable styrene composition (pg. 5). Wang et al. and Han et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the phosphate ester of Han et al. to the composition of Wang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Han et al. suggests, to increase the fire retardancy of the composition (pg. 5).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135.
Considering Claim 19: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant. Wang et al. teaches using xanthan gum as an alternative to alginic acid salt (pg. 3).
Wang et al. does not teach the flame retardant as being 2 to 16 weight percent of the composition. However, the disclosed amount of 1 weight percent is sufficiently close to 2 weight percent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a composition with 2 weight percent of flame retardant from the teachings of Wang et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compositions to have similar properties.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106700135) in view of Han et al. (CN 112080083). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 106700135 and CN 112080083.
Considering Claim 19: Wang et al. teaches a flame retardant resin composition polystyrene (pg. 3), an alginic acid salt (pg. 3), and calcium superphosphate/a phosphorous containing flame retardant (Example 4). Wang et al. teaches an example comprising 12 parts of the alginate salt and 0.5 parts of the phosphorous flame retardant in a composition with 46.6 parts total after drying (Example 4). Therefore, the composition comprises 25% of alginate salt and 1 weight percent of the flame retardant. Wang et al. teaches using xanthan gum as an alternative to alginic acid salt (pg. 3).
Wang et al. does not teach adding a phosphate ester to the composition. However, Han et al. teaches adding 0.5 to 4.5 parts of a phosphate ester to an expandable styrene composition (pg. 5). Wang et al. and Han et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely flame-retardant polystyrene compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the phosphate ester of Han et al. to the composition of Wang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Han et al. suggests, to increase the fire retardancy of the composition (pg. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Wang et al. does not specify the pH of the system and thus does not guarantee the presence of protonated acid groups is not persuasive. Wang et al. teaches an aqueous system comprising the acidic polysaccharide in water. Due to the equilibrium reaction between acid groups and water, at least a portion of the acid groups would be in the protonated form, and a portion would be in the deprotonated form. The claim does not require any specific pH or concentration of protonated acidic groups.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights