DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 02/03/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claim 11 is new.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the aryl phosphate" in lines 3, 4-5, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 1 and 9 do not recite the limitation “an aryl phosphate”. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as not being present in the claims.
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 1-6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2013/0274378 A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Muller teaches thermoplastic molding materials comprising [0020] from 40 to 99% by weight, from 50 to 95% by weight, or from 65 to 90% by weight of component A [0021], and from 1 to 60% by weight, from 5 to 50% by weight, or from 10 to 35% by weight of component B [0022], the percentage by weight being based on the total weight of all the components in the thermoplastic molding materials and together giving 100% by weight [0023], wherein component B is a flameproofing component comprising [0025] from 20 to 79.99% by weight, from 30 to 69.9% by weight, or from 40 to 59.5% by weight of component B2 [0027], the percentage by weight being based on the total weight of all the components in component B and together giving 100% by weight [0028], wherein component B2 is one or more flameproofing compounds comprising phosphorus [0060], wherein the phosphorus-containing compounds are [0072] polymeric phosphonates [0094], wherein component A is a thermoplastic polymer [0029] that is [0030] optionally polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) [0037], which reads on a third composition comprising a fire-resistant thermoplastic resin, comprising 0.2-47.994 wt% of a phosphonate polymer, and 40%-99% of a polymer that is optionally a (meth)acrylic polymer including units resulting from at least one monomer, wherein the monomer includes methyl methacrylate. The wt% of phosphonate polymer is based on the calculations 1% * 20 / 100 = 0.2% and 60% * 79.99 / 100 = 47.994%.
Muller does not teach with sufficient specificity that the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprises 1-25 wt% of a phosphonate polymer. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Muller’s component B to be from 10 to 35% by weight based on the total weight of all the components in Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials that is 100% by weight, and to select the amount of Muller’s component B2 to be from 40 to 59.5% by weight based on the total weight of all the components in Muller’s component B that is 100% by weight. The proposed modification would read on the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprising 4-20.825 wt% of a phosphonate polymer as claimed. The wt% are based on the calculations 10% * 40% / 100% = 4%, and 35% * 59.5% / 100% = 20.825%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing amounts of Muller’s component B and component B2 that are suitable for Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials comprise [0020] from 1 to 60% by weight, from 5 to 50% by weight, or from 10 to 35% by weight of component B [0022], the percentage by weight being based on the total weight of all the components in the thermoplastic molding materials and together giving 100% by weight [0023], wherein component B is a flameproofing component comprising [0025] from 20 to 79.99% by weight, from 30 to 69.9% by weight, or from 40 to 59.5% by weight of component B2 [0027], the percentage by weight being based on the total weight of all the components in component B and together giving 100% by weight [0028]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Muller does not teach a specific embodiment of the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprising 70-98% of a (meth)acrylic polymer including units resulting from at least one monomer, wherein the at least one monomer is chosen from methyl methacrylate, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, acrylic acid esters, methacrylic acid esters, acrylonitrile and maleic anhydride. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Muller’s polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as Muller’s component A, and to select the amount of Muller’s component A to be from 65 to 90% by weight based on the total weight of all the components in Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials that is 100% by weight. The proposed modification would read on the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprising 65-90% of a (meth)acrylic polymer, including units resulting from at least one monomer, wherein the at least one monomer includes methyl methacrylate, which would read on the claimed wt% with sufficient specificity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing a species of Muller’s component A that is suitable for Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials and for providing an amount of Muller’s component A that is suitable for Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials, or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials comprises [0020] from 40 to 99% by weight, preferably from 50 to 95% by weight, or particularly preferably from 65 to 90% by weight of component A [0021], and that component A is a thermoplastic polymer [0029] that is [0030] optionally polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) [0037]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials optionally further comprise [0020] component C [0023] that is glass fibers or carbon fibers [0118], which optionally reads on the third composition of claim 1, further comprising a composite material, wherein the composite material is embedded with the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one of the composite material comprises at least one of a carbon fiber or a glass fiber as claimed in claim 3.
Muller does not teach a specific embodiment of the third composition of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a fabric or a composite material, wherein the at least one of the fabric or the composite material is embedded with the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin, wherein the at least one of the fabric or the composite material comprises at least one of a carbon fiber, a glass fiber, or a natural fiber. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Muller’s component C that is glass fibers or carbon fibers to modify Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials. The proposed modification would read on the third composition of claim 1, further comprising a composite material, wherein the composite material is embedded with the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one of the composite material comprises at least one of a carbon fiber or a glass fiber as claimed in claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing reinforcement for Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials because Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials optionally further comprise [0020] component C [0023] that is glass fibers or carbon fibers [0118].
Regarding claim 4, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Muller, namely that the at least one of the fabric or the composite material is configured to pass flame requirements as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F. However, Muller renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the third composition of claim 2 and the at least one of the composite material as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprises an aryl phosphate and a phosphonate polymer (e.g., a first composition), or an aryl phosphate or a phosphonate polymer (e.g., a second composition and/or third composition), that when embedded in a fabric or composite material, renders the fabric or composite material flame resistant [0031]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the third composition and the at least one of the composite material that are rendered obvious by Muller. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials comprise [0020] component B [0022], wherein component B further comprises [0025] component B3 [0028], wherein component B3 is a fluorine-containing polymer [0061], wherein polytetrafluoroethylene, PTFE, and Teflon are examples of component B3 [0170], wherein Teflon is an antidrip agent [0012], which reads on wherein the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises an anti-drip agent as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials optionally further comprise [0020] component C [0023] that is one or more additives that are dyes or pigments [0118], which optionally reads on wherein the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises a colorant as claimed.
Muller does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises a colorant. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Muller’s component C that is one or more additives that are dyes or pigments to modify Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials. The proposed modification would read on wherein the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises a colorant as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Muller teaches that the thermoplastic molding materials optionally further comprise [0020] component C [0023] that is one or more additives that are dyes or pigments [0118], which would have been beneficial for modifying the color of Muller’s thermoplastic molding materials.
Regarding claim 9, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Muller, namely that at least one of an effective heat of combustion, a peak heat release, or a flame time of the third composition is less than a second composition comprising only the aryl phosphate or the phosphonate polymer, wherein a total weight percentage of the aryl phosphate or the phosphonate polymer in the second composition is equivalent to the total weight percentage of the aryl phosphate and the phosphonate polymer in the third composition. However, Muller renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the third composition of claim 1 and the phosphonate polymer as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprises an aryl phosphate and a phosphonate polymer (e.g., a first composition), or an aryl phosphate or a phosphonate polymer (e.g., a second composition and/or third composition), that when embedded in a fabric or composite material, renders the fabric or composite material flame resistant [0031], and that the addition of phosphonate polymer (Poly) as the singular fire-retardant to the test coupon also reduced the effective heat of combustion [0046]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the third composition and the phosphonate polymer that are rendered obvious by Muller. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Muller teaches that the polymeric phosphonates can be prepared by transesterification reactions of phosphonic acid esters with bifunctional phenols [0094], which reads on wherein the phosphonate polymer comprises at least one of an aryl polyphosphonate, or an aromatic polyphosphonate as claimed.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2013/0274378 A1, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ishihara et al. (US 10,428,213 B2, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Muller renders obvious the third composition of claim 1 as explained above.
Muller does not teach that the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises a polymerization initiator and that the third composition further comprises an initiator, wherein the initiator is configured as a peroxide. However, Ishihara teaches a radical polymerization initiator (17:64-67) that is a peroxide (18:1-2) that is used in a method of producing a polymerizable composition comprising polymerizing a polymerizable composition to obtain a (meth)acrylic resin composition (17:64-67), wherein the polymerizable composition comprises a monomer composition and a phosphorus atom-containing compound (17:50-58), wherein the (meth)acrylic resin composition comprises a (meth)acrylic polymer and a phosphorus atom-containing compound (2:43-46), wherein the (meth)acrylic polymer contains a repeating unit derived from methyl methacrylate or a (meth)acrylic acid ester (2:43-50), wherein a resin molded article (4:3) comprising the (meth)acrylic resin composition (3:62-63) exhibits flame retardancy (4:3-4). Muller and Ishihara are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a third composition comprising a fire-resistant thermoplastic resin comprising a phosphorus atom-containing compound and a (meth)acrylic polymer, including units resulting from at least one monomer. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce Muller’s polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) in the presence of Ishihara’s radical polymerization initiator that is a peroxide. The proposed modification would read on wherein the fire-resistant thermoplastic resin further comprises a polymerization initiator as claimed, and the third composition further comprising an initiator, wherein the initiator is configured as a peroxide as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for promoting production of Muller’s polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) because Ishihara teaches that the radical polymerization initiator (17:64-67) that is a peroxide (18:1-2) is beneficial for being used in a method of producing a polymerizable composition comprising polymerizing a polymerizable composition to obtain a (meth)acrylic resin composition (17:64-67), wherein the polymerizable composition comprises a monomer composition (17:50-58), wherein the (meth)acrylic resin composition comprises a (meth)acrylic polymer (2:43-46), wherein the (meth)acrylic polymer contains a repeating unit derived from methyl methacrylate or a (meth)acrylic acid ester (2:43-50), and because Muller teaches that component A is a thermoplastic polymer [0029] that is [0030] optionally polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) [0037].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara et al. (US 10,428,213 B2, cited in IDS) (p. 5-10, filed 02/03/2026) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara et al. (US 10,428,213 B2, cited in IDS) (p. 5-10, filed 02/03/2026) have been considered and are responded to by the new grounds of rejection that is set forth in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (US 10,428,213 B2, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 2013/0274378 A1, cited in IDS) (p. 5-10, filed 02/03/2026) have been considered and are responded to by the new grounds of rejection that is set forth in this Office action.
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 DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID T KARST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
