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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 84, the word moiety should be plural.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 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.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 depends upon claim 1, which requires that the dialdehyde has “a terminal aldehyde”, which the applicant defines on page 6 of the specification in paragraph 31. This definition requires that “there is a -CHO functional group located at an end of the dialdehyde or at the end of a compound”, however several of the potential structures of claim 4 place the aldehyde on an aromatic or other ring system, which by nature of their structure do not possess an end. It therefore cannot be understood how these particular structures would meet the requirement of having a terminal aldehyde or conversely how there would be any differentiation between the positions on the ring system that would either meet or not meet this requirement. The applicant is required to review and amend the appropriate claims to clearly indicate how the limitation of a terminal aldehyde of claim 1 applies to these ring structures.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 109942829, Foreign Patent Document #1 from IDS dated 5/8/2024).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 4-5,
Fu teaches a polymeric flame retardant which is made from melamine, terephthalaldehyde, and 9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenanthrene-10-oxide (DOPO) (Paragraph 11), where melamine is a triazine with three amino groups, which reacts with terephthalaldehyde to generate C-N linkages and that is further reacted with DOPO to generate the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which meets the requirements for moiety A and B as well as the requirements of claims 4 and 5. While Fu is silent on the number of repeat units, Fu teaches that the structure is hyperbranched (Paragraph 2), which would imply several repeat units in order to meet this requirement and it would therefore logically follow that at least 5 repeat units would be present. Finally, Fu teaches that the composition is halogen free (Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claims 7-10,
Fu teaches a method of generating the flame retardant polymer which has the structure as discussed above in regard to claim 1 where the melamine and terepthalaldehyde are dissolved in solvent and heated to up to 120 °C for up to 24 hours (Paragraph 25) and where the solvents are one or more of a list including dimethylformamide and ethanol (Paragraph 13). While Fu does not teach the use of dimethylacetamide, dimethylacetamide is similar to dimethylformamide, differing only in the addition of a methyl group, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being usable under most conditions interchangeably with dimethylformamide and it would therefore have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted dimethylacetamide for dimethylformamide with a reasonable expectation of success. Fu further teaches that the above mixture is then reacted with DOPO (Paragraph 25), meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 11,
While Fu does not teach that the mixing (reaction) is carried out for more than 48 hours, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that reaction times are determined by the point at which the desired reaction ceases to take place and it would logically follow, the ordinarily skilled artisan would monitor the reaction by some means in order to determine when this time point occurred. As such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the reaction time is a result-effective variable, as no further desired reaction will occur once the reactants are used up or that no further reaction is desired upon reaching a desired molecular weight. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have run the reaction for any length of time that consumed the reactants or achieved the desired molecular weight of the polymer.
Claims 3, 6, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 109942829) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-11 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP-H7188458).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6,
While Fu teaches a polymeric compound which contains a triazine that has more than two amine groups, Fu does not teach that the triazine is alkyl substituted, specifically with a methyl group, and containing two amine groups. Suzuki teaches the use of acetoguanamine, which is a triazine with two amine groups and a methyl group (Paragraph 11). Suzuki also teaches that triazines such as melamine can be used (Paragraph 11). One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to reduce the amount of branching in the polymer would look to use a triazine with less than three amine groups such as acetoguanamine. Because Suzuki teaches that both melamine and acetoguanamine are useful for the formation of flame retardant compounds (Paragraph 11), it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the acetoguanamine of Suzuki for the melamine used by Fu to achieve the predictable result of a flame retardant polymer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 12-18,
Fu teaches that the flame retardant polymer can be mixed with another polymer (Paragraph 28). Fu further teaches that flame retardant compositions typically include components that generate phosphoric acid upon combustion (Paragraph 5). While Fu does not explicitly teach the addition of such compounds, Suzuki teaches that oligomers or polymers containing triazines are used in combination with phosphorus-based flame retardants (Paragraph 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flame retarding capability of the additives would be a function of how much of the flame retardant components are included and would be motivated to include additional flame retardant additives in order to obtain higher inhibition of combustion. As such, it would have been obvious to have added the phosphorus-based flame retardant additives taught by Suzuki in combination with the flame retardant polymer taught by Fu to obtain the predictable result of a more flame retardant composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
While Fu teaches that the flame retardant polymer can be mixed with other polymers, Fu fails to teach that the polymer is a polyamide or polyethylene. Suzuki teaches that triazine containing flame retardant polymers can be used with a variety of thermoplastics including polyethylene (Paragraph 28) and polyamide resins (Paragraph 29) in addition to resins such as ABS, which contains acrylonitrile (Paragraph 28). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that because Suzuki teaches that triazine containing flame retardant polymers can be used in conjunction with a variety of different polymers that a similar polymer taught by Fu could also be used. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the polymers used by Suzuki for the polyacrylonitrile used by Fu to achieve the predictable result of a flame retardant polymer composition with a variety of polymers with a reasonable expectation of success. Suzuki further teaches the use of phosphate containing compounds, which are also used as char forming agents, meeting the requirements of the instant claims. Suzuki additionally teaches that the ratio between the triazine polymer and the phosphorus-based flame retardant is to be from 5:100 to 1:1 of the polymer to the phosphorus containing component, which includes the ratio of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flame retardant capability of the additives would be a function of how much of the flame retardant components are included and would be motivated to include additional flame retardant additives in order to obtain higher inhibition of combustion and would adjust the ratios between them to obtain the desired flame retardant capability. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the flame retardant components in any effective ratio and it would further have been obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
While Fu in view of Suzuki does not teach that the flame retardant polymer and agent are premixed prior to introduction of the polymer, Suzuki does teach the mixing of all components together (Paragraph 30). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have mixed the ingredients in any order. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Finally, with regard to amount of flame retardant additives used in the composition, Fu teaches that the amount of the polymer is 3 to 6% by mass (Paragraph 30), which when using a ratio of 1:3 between the two flame retardant components would result in an amount of 12%, meeting the requirements of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights