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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 03/12/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). As such, non-elected claims 7-14 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1, which is drawn to a manufacturing method for a phosphorous flame retardant, is very indefinite in regards to limitations of:
“adding a retardant containing phenolic functional group and chloromethylstyrene to a reaction tank and adding butanone as a solvent and potassium iodide for stirring;”. How can the addition of potassium iodide cause stirring? Furthermore, the actual function of the potassium iodide component in the manufacturing method is unclear.
Does the reaction of all the claimed components occur in this process step to product compounds of Formula (3) and/or Formula (4), or does the reaction occur in the next process step of: “draining the solvent and placing in an oven after stirring to produce a phosphorous flame retardant,”.
Furthermore, said limitation of: “draining the solvent and placing in an oven after stirring to produce a phosphorous flame retardant,” is itself very unclear. What exactly is placed in the oven after stirring, is it the solvent containing the phosphorous flame retardants of Formula (3) and/or Formula (4), or rather does the solvent comprise the initial reactants of a retardant containing phenolic functional group, chloromethylstyrene, potassium iodide all dissolved in the butanone solvent?
What is the purpose of the placing the solvent in the oven-what occurs? What are the conditions employed in the oven, such as temperature and duration time?
Dependent claims 2-6 are all indefinite not only because they are all dependent on rejected independent claim 1, but also in their own right for the following reasons.
In dependent claim 2, the limitation of: “wherein a molar ratio . . .” [Emphasis added] is indefinite because the use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. If this is not Applicant’s actual intention and Applicant’s wants the limitation to be actually required, Applicant will need to amend the claim by deleting the article “a” and replacing it with the word --the--.
Likewise, in dependent claim 3, the limitation of: “wherein based on a total weight . . .” [Emphasis added] is indefinite because the use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. The same goes for the limitation of: “an amount of solvent . . .” [Emphasis added] which implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. If this is not Applicant’s actual intention and Applicant’s wants the limitation to be actually required, Applicant will need to amend the claim by deleting the articles “a” and “an” and replacing both with the word --the--.
Likewise, in dependent claim 4, the limitation of: “wherein based on a total weight . . .” [Emphasis added] is indefinite because the use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. The same goes for the limitation of: “an amount of the potassium iodide . . .” [Emphasis added] which implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. If this is not Applicant’s actual intention and Applicant’s wants the limitation to be actually required, Applicant will need to amend the claim by deleting the articles “a” and “an” and replacing both with the word --the--.
Likewise in dependent claim 5, the limitations of: “wherein a stirring speed . . .”, “a stirring time . . .” and “a stirring temperature . . .” [Emphasis added] are indefinite because the use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. If this is not Applicant’s actual intention and Applicant’s wants the limitation to be actually required, Applicant will need to amend the claim by deleting the articles “a” and replacing them with the word --the--.
Likewise in dependent claim 6, the limitations of: “wherein a temperature . . .”, and “a storage time . . .” [Emphasis added] are indefinite because the use of the article “a” implies that which follows is set forth by way of illustration only and is thus not an actual requirement. If this is not Applicant’s actual intention and Applicant’s wants the limitation to be actually required, Applicant will need to amend the claim by deleting the articles “a” and replacing them with the word --the--.
Claims Free of Prior-Art Rejections
Claims 1-6 are presently free of any prior-art rejections because there is no prior-art reference or combination of prior-art references that teach or suggest applicant’s claimed manufacturing method for phosphorous flame retardant, comprising:
adding a retardant containing phenolic functional group and chloromethylstyrene to a reaction tank and adding butanone as a solvent and potassium iodide for stirring; and
draining the solvent and placing in an oven after stirring to produce a phosphorous flame retardant,
wherein the retardant containing phenolic functional group has a chemical structure shown in following Formula (1), the chloromethylstyrene has a chemical structure shown in following Formula (2), and the phosphorous flame retardant has a chemical structure shown in following Formula (3) or Formula (4).
It needs to be pointed out that in Applicant’s I.D.S. filed 09/30/2024 that Applicant cited: “Office Action of Japan Counterpart Application”, issued on September 2, 2024, p1-p3”, but such was NOT considered by the Examiner because Applicant did not submit and English Language translation of said document. Likewise, in Applicant’s I.D.S. filed 03/28/2024 that Applicant cited: “Office Action of Taiwan Counterpart Application”, issued on January 23, 2024, p1-p4”, but such was NOT considered by the Examiner because Applicant did not submit and English Language translation of said document. If Applicant in the future wants said two documents to be actually considered by the Examiner, Applicant will also need to file a new I.D.S. listing said two documents.
A relevant prior-art reference is as followed:
Timberlake U.S. Patent Number 8,404,161 discloses a hydroxyphenyl or alkoxyphenyl phosphine oxide composition comprising (i) a first mixture of mono-(hydroxyphenyl) or (alkoxyphenyl) phosphine oxide isomers, (ii) a second mixture of bis-(hydroxyphenyl) or (alkoxyphenyl) phosphine oxide isomers, (iii) a third mixture of tris-(hydroxyphenyl) or (alkoxyphenyl) phosphine oxide isomers, and optionally iv) a minority amount of non-hydroxy or non-alkoxy tris-phenyl phosphine oxides is provided. Also provided are epoxy resins compositions with excellent flame retardancy and physical properties, which resins comprise the phosphine oxide composition, see abstract.
Applicant’s invention is clearly patentably distinct over Timberlake’s disclosure because Timberlake neither teaches nor suggests reacting a tris-(hydroxyphenyl) phosphine oxide with chloromethylstyrene in the presence of a butanone solvent and potassium iodide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights