DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim 5 was canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-14 are now pending in the application.
The previous objection to claim 14 is withdrawn due to the amendment.
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 1-4, 6-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kondo et al. (JP 2005-270819A as cited on the IDS dated 11/11/2025; English Machine Translation included herewith) in view of Ito et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0239925 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, 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”;
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;
and wherein the degree of polymerization of the polysaccharide is from 50 to 100,000 and especially 100 to 10,000 [0011] thereby reading on the claimed range of 50 to 20,000.
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)).
Kondo et al. do not teach the composition comprising a thermoplastic resin and further silent on the thermoplastic resin being an amorphous resin of instant claim 6 and further silent still on the particular thermoplastic resins required by instant claim 7.
However, Ito, in the same field of endeavor, namely articles comprising saccharides and flame retardants, 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]; and a flame retardant [0122]. 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]. Ito offers the motivation of choosing a thermoplastic resin due to its ability to form uniform shaped article with a saccharide having uniform pore size and uniform particle size [0014]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thermoplastic resin of Ito with the polysaccharide of Kondo, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
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 10-11, Kondo et al. do not teach the method comprising the steps of dry milling and melt kneading and are further silent on the melt kneading being performed two or more times.
However, Ito et al., the same field of endeavor, teach dry milling and melt kneading [0130], [0145]. Ito et al. offer the motivation of using these method steps, due to their ability to form the desired molded shapes [0131]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method steps of Ito with the composition of Kondo et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention. And regarding the melt kneading is performed two or more times, 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 amount of times the kneading is performed in the process of Kondo in view of Ito et al., absent evidence of criticality, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 1-5, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection over Kondo and the 103 rejection over Ito, the arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 over Kondo in view of Ito as set forth above.
Conclusion
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