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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-10, 12-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US 2012/0174508) in view of Duquesne et al. (US 2006/0264562).
Regarding claims 1-9, 12-15: Brooks et al. (US ‘508) discloses intumescent compositions [abstract], wherein Example 1 [Ex. 1; 0097-0100] prepares a one-part composition containing 9.98 wt% Geniosil STP-E10 (silane terminated polyether [see instant specification pg. 9, ln. 1-2]) 19.91 wt% DOA (dioctyl adipate [0034; 0101]), 13.00 wt% titanium dioxide (filler), 11.34 wt% pentaerythritol (carbon supplier [see instant specification pg. 15, ln. 13-21]), 9.68 wt% melamine (propellant [see instant specification pg. 16, ln. 18-24]), 1.27 wt% zinc borate (filler/ash-crust stabilizer [see instant specification pg. 18, ln. 1-18]), 33.74 wt% ammonium polyphosphate (dehydrogenation catalyst [see instant specification pg. 15, ln. 26 – pg. 16, ln. 16]), and 1.11 wt% γ-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane [Ex. 1; 0097-0100].
Brooks et al. (US ‘508) does not disclose a styrene-acrylate copolymer. However, Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) discloses intumescent compositions [abstract] containing a copolymer of p-methylstyrene (PMS) and 2-ethylhexylacrylate (2EHA) [0020] (ex. 50/50 PMS/2EHA [0024, 0042]). Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) discloses the copolymer is used in a mixture with ammonium polyphosphate (APP) (60/40 (PMS/2EHA)/APP) [0038-0042]. Brooks et al. (US ‘508) and Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of intumescent compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a copolymer of p-methylstyrene (PMS) and 2-ethylhexylacrylate (2EHA) (ex. 50/50 PMS/2EHA) with ammonium polyphosphate (60/40 (PMS/2EHA)/APP), as taught by Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) in the invention Brooks et al. (US ‘508), and would have been motivated to do so since Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) suggests copolymers of p-methylstyrene (PMS) and 2-ethylhexylacrylate (2EHA) reduces flame spread during early stages of a fire which contributes to improve the char formation and intumescence during the last stage of the fire [0016] {thereby affording 20.24 wt% PMS/2EHA and 13.50 wt% APP; the composition containing 30.22 wt% polymers (9.98 wt% Geniosil STP-E10 + 20.24 wt% PMS/2EHA); 0.49:1 ratio Geniosil STP-E10:PMS/2EHA}.
Regarding claim 10: Brooks et al. (US ‘508) discloses the composition can contain ammonium polyphosphate in an amount of 20-40 wt% [0054]; thereby affording 12-24 wt% PMS/2EHA (via 60/40 (PMS/2EHA)/APP) in the in the composition of Ex. 1, as modified by Duquesne et al. (US ‘562).
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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 17-19: Brooks et al. (US ‘508) discloses two part compositions [Ex. 2]
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where changes in the sequence of adding ingredients derived from the prior art process steps. Ex parte Rubin , 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) [See MPEP 2144.04].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, ln. 22 – pg. 7, ln. 21, filed 12/16/25, with respect to claims 1-4, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, ln. 3 – pg. 11, ln. 2, filed 12/16/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 and 17-19 under 25 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brooks et al. (US 2012/0174508) in view of Duquesne et al. (US 2006/0264562). Brooks et al. (US ‘508) discloses intumescent compositions [abstract], wherein Example 1 prepares a one-part composition [Ex. 1; 0097-0100]. Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) discloses intumescent compositions [abstract] containing a copolymer of p-methylstyrene (PMS) and 2-ethylhexylacrylate (2EHA) [0020] (ex. 50/50 PMS/2EHA [0024, 0042]). Duquesne et al. (US ‘562) discloses the copolymer is used in a mixture with ammonium polyphosphate (APP) (60/40 (PMS/2EHA)/APP) [0038-0042] {see above}.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 on 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 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.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767