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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ootsuka (JP 2005-133054A) as evidenced by Clariant (Exolit AP 62 Data Sheet).
Regarding claims 15-17: Ootsuka teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane, the ammonium polyphosphate, Exolit AP 462, and tricresyl phosphate (TCP) [0032; Examples].
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.
Regarding claims 20-22: Ootsuka teaches the claimed amount of ammonium polyphosphate and phosphate (TCP) [Examples; Table 2].
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 23-24 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 18-19 and 23: Ootsuka teaches the claimed amount of phosphate (TCP) [Examples; Table 2]. Ootsuka fails to teach a derivative of phosphinic acid.
However, Siddhamalli et al. teach adding 15 to 25 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 to 25 wt% of a phosphinate as taught by Siddhamalli et al. to the composition of Ootsuka to improve the flame retardance of the composition.
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.
Claim(s) 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.
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.
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 have been considered but are moot because due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment, and the IDS filed 3/12/2026, 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.
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