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 § 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 3-5, 7, 9, 11 and 14 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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9 and 14 are rejected because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “X+Y is > 1%”, and the claim also recites “preferably > 2%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 4 recites “10 to 500” and also recites “preferably 20 to 250”.
Claim 5 recites “at least one condensation product of melamine” and also recites “is preferably selected from the group consisting of melam, melem, or melon” and also recites “preferably melam.”
Claim 7 recites “< 1.3” and also recites “preferably < 1.1”.
Claim 9 recites “< 0.1 g/100 ml” and also recites “preferably < 0.07 g/100 ml”.
Claim 14 recites “at least one condensation product of melamine” and also recites “is preferably selected from the group consisting of melam, melem, or melon”.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the “preferably” language will not be considered as being required.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “at least one component selected from the group consisting of phosphinates, diphosphinates, such as aluminum diethyl phosphinate, zinc borates, and zinc phosphates”. The “such as” language is considered indefinite as the claim is unclear whether the claim limitations after the ‘such as’ language is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kersjes et al. (US PG Pub 2001/0005745 A1) as cited on the IDS dated 7/21/2025.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Kersjes et al. teach flame retardant compositions comprising a polyphosphate salt of a 1,3,5-triazine (title), wherein the 1,3,5-triazine is melamine (claim 8) and wherein the flame retardant comprises melam, melem, melon or mixtures thereof (claim 9) thereby reading on the at least one condensation product of melamine.
Regarding claim 3, Kersjes et al. teach 15-45 wt% of a polyphosphate salt of a 1,3,5-triazine compound [0014], wherein the 1,3,5-triazine compound is selected from melamine, melam, among others (claim 9) thereby reading on the claimed range of the proportion of X (melamine) + the proportion of Y (melam/at least one condensation product of melamine) is greater than 1%.
Regarding claim 4, Kersjes et al. teach the degree of condensation n of the polyphosphate salt is higher than 20 (claim 1) thereby reading on the claimed range of 10 to 500.
Regarding claim 6, Kersjes et al. teach the pH of a 10% slurry of the phosphate salt in water is higher or equal to 5 (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kersjes et al. teach polyphosphate salt of a 1,3,5-triazine compound [0014], wherein the 1,3,5-triazine compound is selected from melamine, melam, among others and mixtures thereof (claim 9) wherein the melamine content is higher than 1.2 moles of melamine per mole of phosphorous atom (claim 3) and wherein in a preferred embodiment the M/P ratio of 1.3 is obtained and then converted into melamine polyphosphate having an M/P ratio of 1.26 [0041] thereby reading on the claimed range of less than or equal to 1.3.
Regarding claim 8, Kersjes et al. teach “the resulting melamine phosphate.. was then heated to a temperature of 310 C and converted into melamine polyphosphate” [0041] thereby implying the cations of the at least one 1,3,5-triazine compound make up all of the cations of the polyphosphate salt, thereby reading on the claimed greater than or equal to 90% of the total proportion as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Kersjes et al. teach the melamine polyphosphate having a solubility of 0.01 to 0.10 g per 100 ml water [0004] thereby reading on the claimed range of less than 0.1 g/100 ml.
Regarding claim 10, Kersjes et al. teach “the resulting melamine phosphate.. was then heated to a temperature of 310 C and converted into melamine polyphosphate” [0041]. As such, the decomposition temperature of the melamine polyphosphate is interpreted to be higher than 310 C and thereby reading on the claimed range of higher than 320 C.
Regarding claim 11, Kersjes et al. teach the flame retardant further comprises zinc borate and zinc phosphate [0010], [0029].
Regarding claim 12, Kersjes et al. teach test bars formed with a mixture comprising 55% polyamide with the melamine polyphosphate [0042] thereby reading on the plastic composition as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Kersjes et al. teach a polyphosphate salt (claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kersjes et al. teach the flame retardant as set forth in the rejection above for claims 3-10.
Claims 1-14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlosser et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0173684 A1) as cited on the IDS filed 10/11/2024.
Regarding claims 1-7, and 14, Schlosser et al. teach flame retardant compositions comprising a salt of 1,3,5-triazine compound with polyphosphoric acid and a salt of polyphosphoric acid with melamine, melam and melem (claim 1), wherein the average degree of condensation is higher than 20 with the melamine content amount to more than 1.1 mole of melamine per mol3 of phosphorous atoms and a preferred pH of a 10% slurry of polyphosphate salt in water being higher than or equal to 4 (claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Schlosser et al. teach the melamine polyphosphate [0084] thereby implying the cations of the at least one 1,3,5-triazine compound make up all of the cations of the polyphosphate salt, thereby reading on the claimed greater than or equal to 90% of the total proportion as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Schlosser et al. teach the solubility of from 0.01 to 0.10 g/100 ml [0020-0021].
Regarding claim 10, Schlosser et al. teach the reaction product at a temperature of from 0 to 330 C and then is further baked at 340 to 450 C [0022-0023] thereby implying the decomposition temperature of the melamine polyphosphate is higher than 340 C and thereby reading on the claimed range of higher than 320 C.
Regarding claim 11, Schlosser et al. teach phosphinates (claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Schlosser et al. teach plastic compositions comprising the flame retardant [0004].
Regarding claim 13, Schlosser et al. teach polyphosphate salt [0083].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: EP 0 994 156A1 as set forth on the IDS dated 1/19/2024, see Examples [0043-0044].
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