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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootsuka (JP 2005-133054A) as evidenced by Clariant (Exolit AP 62 Data Sheet) as applied to claim 15 above further in view of Siddhamalli et al. (2008/0167408).
Regarding claims 15-17, 19 and 23: Ootsuka teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane, 28 wt% or 29 wt% the ammonium polyphosphate, Exolit AP 462, and tricresyl phosphate (TCP) [0032; Examples; Table 2].
Exolit AP 462 has an average particle size (D50) of 20 microns and the claimed solubility, and a coating as evidenced by Clariant (page 1).
The composition does not contain any melamine or polyhydric alcohol. While Exolit AP 462 is coated with melamine resin, a melamine resin is chemically distinct from the compound melamine.
Ootsuka fails to teach a derivative of phosphinic acid.
However, Siddhamalli et al. teach adding 15 wt% of a phosphinate in addition to a phosphate in an analogous composition to improve the flame retardance of the composition [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 15 wt% of a phosphinate as taught by Siddhamalli et al. to the composition of Ootsuka to improve the flame retardance of the composition.
Regarding claims 19 and 23: Ootsuka teaches the claimed amount of phosphate (TCP) [Examples; Table 2].
Regarding claim 24: Ootsuka fails to disclose the Mw of the polyurethane.
However, Siddhamalli et al. teach that, in an analogous composition, the polyurethane should have a Mw of 90,000 to 450,000 Da [0049; Examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the art tested Mw of 90,000 to 450,000 Da of Siddhamalli et al. as the Mw of the polyurethane of Ootsuka.
Regarding claim 25: Ootsuka teaches 20 parts by weight of TCP based upon 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane resin [0011-0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of ammonium polyphosphate and expanded graphite for the desired flame retardance. They are result effective variables. The claimed range is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
Zhang et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 7468-7477) teach that encapsulated ammonium polyphosphate blended into thermoplastic polyurethane provides a huge increase in tensile strength and elongation at break, and improved flame retardance by effectively restraining melt-dripping (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has alleged unexpected results of advantageous properties. This is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the data provided. The examples with aluminum diethylphosphinate is not sufficient to cover all derivatives of phosphinic acid. Furthermore, the amounts in the examples are not sufficient to cover the claimed ranges.
The applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results over the closest prior art, which is Ootsuka (JP 2005-133054A).
The results are expected. Zhang et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 7468-7477) teach that encapsulated ammonium polyphosphate blended into thermoplastic polyurethane provides a huge increase in tensile strength and elongation at break, and improved flame retardance by effectively restraining melt-dripping (Abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights