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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 110256803). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 110256803.
Considering Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9: 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. does not refer to the composition as a flame retardant composition. However, the reference teaches all the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and thus would inherently have flame-retardant properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Considering Claims 11 and 14: Wang et al. teaches the compatibilizer as being styrene/maleic anhydride (pg. 3).
Considering Claims 15 and 16: Wang et al. teaches the thermoplastic resin as being acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, which has a softening point below 200 ºC (Abstract).
Considering Claim 17: Wang et al. teaches a molded article made from the composition (pg. 3).
Considering Claims 18 and 19: Wang et al. teaches using the composition to form an electronic appliance part/housing (pg. 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.
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, 2, 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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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: Wang et al. teaches 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Wang et al. does not teach the limitation of previous claim 3 is not persuasive, as this feature is optional in the newly presented claims. Wang et al. teaches that acidic functional group embodiment of instant claim 1.
B) The applicant’s argument that Kahn does not teach claimed amount of the acidic polysaccharide is not persuasive. 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).
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.
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