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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (WO 2021/189128).
Considering Claims 1, and 8-10: Kahn teaches a flame retardant (¶0034) composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer, an alginate salt/acidic polysaccharide having a salt of an acid functional group in the backbone, and a compatibilizer (¶0007). Kahn teaches the alginate salt as being calcium alginate (¶0020).
Kahn teaches the alginate salt as providing improved melt strength at a reduced cost compared to other components of the blend (¶0021). Kahn teaches the combined amount of chitosan, alginate salt, and compatibilizer as being 1 to 65% by weight of the composition (¶0025). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of alginate salt through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Kahn suggests, to improve the melt strength of the composition, while reducing the costs (¶0021).
Considering Claims 4 and 5: Alginic acid has a DS of 1.00.
Considering Claim 7: Kahn teaches the amount of the compatibilizer as being 1 to 5 weight percent of the composite (¶0030).
Considering Claim 11: Kahn teaches using maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene as the compatibilizer (¶0086), which contains maleic anhydride/a structural unit derived from maleic acid (¶0086).
Considering Claim 15: Kahn teaches the polymer as being polypropylene (¶0086), which has a softening point below 200 ºC.
Considering Claim 17: Kahn teaches a molded article made from the composition (¶0048).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (KR 102127941) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110256803). Note: A machine translation is being used for KR 102127941 and CN 110256803.
Considering Claims 1 and 7-11, and 14: Woo et al. teaches a composition comprising acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene/a thermoplastic resin and 15 to 45 weight percent of a calcium alginate (Abstract).
Woo et al. does not teach adding a compatiblizer to the composition. However, Wang et al. teaches a composition comprising an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene polymer/thermoplastic resin, xantham gum/an acidic polysaccharide, and a compatibilizer (Abstract). Wang et al. teaches the composition as comprising 10 parts of xantham gum and 5 parts of compatibilizer in a composition comprising 118.5 parts (Example 1). Thus the xantham gum is 8.4 weight percent and the amount of compatibilizer is 4.2 weight percent. Wang et al. teaches the compatibilizer as being styrene/maleic anhydride (pg. 3). Woo et al. and Wang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polysaccharide filled ABS resins. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compatibilizer of Wang et al. to the composition of Woo et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wang et al. suggests, to increase the compatibility between the hydrophobic resin and hydrophilic polysaccharide.
Considering Claims 4 and 5: Alginic acid has a DS of 1.00.
Considering Claims 15 and 16: Wang et al. teaches acrylonitrile butadiene styrene has a softening point below 200 ºC (Abstract).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (KR 102127941) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110256803) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lacroix (US Pat. 6,825,270).
Considering Claims 12 and 13: Woo et al. and Wang et al. collectively teach the composition of claim 11 as discussed above.
Wang et al. is silent towards the acid number of the styrene maleic anhydride polymer. However, Lacroix teaches a styrene maleic anhydride compatibilizer with an acid number between 200 and 240 mg KOH/g (10:4-8). Wang et al. and Lacroix are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polystyrene composites. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have use the compatibilizer of Lacroix as the compatibilizer of Wang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Lacroix suggests, it is a commercially available and known compatibilizer for polystyrene composites.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Considering Claims 18 and 19: The closest prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed resin housing or electronic device. The closest prior art of record is Woo et al. and Kahn, discussed above. Kahn is directed towards a packaging film for food application, while Woo et al. is directed towards a cement additive. There is no suggestion in the prior art of record to use these compositions in the disparate film of resin housing for electronic devices, absent impermissible hindsight. As such, the claimed resin housing and electronic device are non-obvious over the closest prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument of unexpected results for the claimed range is not persuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). See MPEP § 716.02(d). The instant claims currently allow for any thermoplastic resin, while the data relied upon by the applicant only uses polystyrene. As such, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim scope.
Further, the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 716.02(b). The applicant cites examples 15 and 20 as the comparative examples, with the data showing a triangle rating for flame-retardancy and impact resistance respectively. However, the original specification teaches triangle ratings as being acceptable as their no problem in practical use (¶0217-21). Further, the results for examples 15 and 20 are identical to those of Examples 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 which fall within the scope of the instant claims. As such, the data does not establish that the claimed invention has materially superior properties with the comparative examples.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 at 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 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights