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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed on 2/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (JP 2005-270819A as cited on the IDS dated 11/11/2025; English Machine Translation included herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo et al. teach a polysaccharide dispersion in gel form forming a heat-retaining material [0003] wherein the polysaccharide dispersion contains water-soluble polymers [0027] thereby reading on a resin as required by the instant claim;
wherein the polysaccharide is selected from chitin or chitosan (claim 7) thereby reading on the “wherein a sugar backbone in the polysaccharide has at least a basic functional group”;
and wherein the polysaccharide is in particle form and has an average particle size of 10 – 300 µm [0013] thereby reading on the claimed range of 0.10 to 300.0 µm with sufficient specificity.
Kondo et al. do not particularly teach the composition is a flame retardant.
However, the instant specification states that flame retardancy is imparted as the polysaccharides undergo a dehydration-condensation reaction when the resin is heated promoted by the fact that the sugar backbone in the polysaccharide has a basic functional group (see instant specification [0015-0016]). Kondo et al. teach chitin is present, thereby having the basic functional group in the backbone of the polysaccharide. Kondo et al. further teach the resin is heated [0024]. Since the composition of Kondo et al. has the same components as required by the instant claim and undergoes heating which would impart flame retardancy, then the composition of Kondo et al. would meet the claimed structural limitations and intended use as a flame retardant (Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kondo et al. teach chitin (claim 7) and chitin contains a basic functional group that is an amino group, having a glucosamine backbone, as demonstrated by the structure of chitin:
PNG
media_image1.png
147
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kondo et al. teach the concentration of the polysaccharide is from 1 to 10% by mass [0016] thereby reading on the claimed range of 5 to 40 mass%.
Regarding claims 12-13, Kondo et al. teach a molded film [0009], [0046], wherein the film reads on housing as required by the instant claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Kondo et al. teach the polysaccharide having an average particle size of 10 – 300 µm [0013] thereby reading on the claimed range of 30 to 300.0 µm with sufficient specificity.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0239925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al. teach an article comprising (claims 1, 3, 9):
a resin component, wherein the resin component is a thermoplastic resin and
a water-soluble auxiliary component, wherein the water-soluble auxiliary component comprises an oligosaccharide, and wherein the oligosaccharide is a chitin or chitosan;
wherein auxiliary component is dispersed in a particle state having an average particle length of from about 0.1 to 800 µm [0127] thereby reading on the claimed range of 0.10 to 300.0 µm with sufficient specificity;
and a flame retardant [0122].
Ito et al. do not teach the flame retardant additive in a preferred embodiment.
However, Ito et al. teaches the flame retardant with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” a flame retardant in the composition of Ito et al., as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claims 2-4, Ito et al. teach chitin and chitosan which contain a basic functional group that is an amino group, having a glucosamine backbone.
Regarding claims 5-7, Ito et al. teach a thermoplastic resin wherein the resin is an ABS resin, styrene, (meth)acrylates [0057-0059] among others, and further teach an amorphous resin [0176].
Regarding claim 9, Ito et al. teach the auxiliary component in an amount of from 1-99 [0118] thereby overlapping with the claimed range of 5-40 mass%.
Regarding claim 10, Ito et al. teach dry milling and melt kneading [0130], [0145].
Regarding claim 11, Ito et al. do not particularly teach melt kneading is performed two or more times.
However, case law has held it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time, temperature and amounts of kneading in the process of Ito et al., absent evidence of criticality, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12-13, Ito et al. teach molded articles such as a three-dimensional shape (tubular shape) thereby reading on the molded product and the housing [0131] as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Ito et al. teach wherein auxiliary component is dispersed in a particle state having an average particle length of from about 0.1 to 800 µm [0127] thereby reading on the claimed range of 30 to 300.0 µm with sufficient specificity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 1-8, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-13 under Guan, Wu and Gringat have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kondo and Ito as set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights