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 without traverse of Group 1, claims 1–11 and 19–26 in the reply filed on 9/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12–18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/11/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6, 8, 19–22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longdon (US 2012/0238673 A1) as evidenced as PhosGard ® TDS.
Longdon teaches the formation of a bio-resin composition that contains cellulose acetate, an aliphatic polyester such as polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), wherein the composition may comprise up to 75 percent cellulose acetate and up to 10 percent PBAT based upon the total weight of the composition. Longdon abstract, ¶¶ 17–20. The composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers, such as dimethyl phthalate and tricresyl phosphate, that constitute up to 30 weight percent of the composition. Id. ¶¶ 24. The composition may further contain up to 10 weight percent of filler such as calcium carbonate (i.e., powdered limestone) and fibrous reinforcement. Id. ¶ 25.
While Longdon lists tricresyl phosphate as a suitable plasticizer, it also performs as a flame-retardant. See PhosGard® TDS. Accordingly, the use of tricresyl phosphate in Longdon may serve as the required flame-retardant component. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used tricresyl phosphate as a flame retardant at the claimed weight levels as the plasticizer weight percentages taught in Longdon overlap with those claimed and tricresyl phosphate can perform as both plasticizer and flame retardant.
Claim(s) 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longdon as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of JP 4303890 B2, “ ’890.”
Longdon fails to teach the use of triethyl phosphate as a plasticizer.
’890 teaches the formation of a biodegradable polymer composition that includes cellulose acetate, aliphatic-aromatic copolyesters, and plasticizers. ’890 abstract, ¶¶ 10, 31. The plasticizers may include tricresyl phosphate and triethyl phosphate. Id. ¶ 31.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace tricresyl phosphate with triethyl phosphate as ’890 teaches the functional equivalency of the plasticizers in biodegradable compositions. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longdon as applied to claims 6 and 24 above, and further in view of Sawai (US 2014/0058022 A1).
Longdon fails to teach the use of melamine phosphate as a flame retardant.
Sawai teaches a cellulose acetate resin composition that includes phosphate flame retardants such as tricresyl phosphate and melamine phosphate. Id. ¶¶ 108–109.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time the invention was made to replace tricresyl phosphate with melamine phosphate as Sawai teaches the functional equivalency the phosphate flame retardants in cellulosic polymer compositions. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longdon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herring (US 2020/0156356 A1).
Longdon teaches the creation of a bio-resin composition that may be used to make electronic or electrical housings, wherein the resin offers good temperature performance with a high renewable content, but fails to teach its incorporation into a specific product like printed circuit boards reinforced with woven natural fibers. Longdon ¶ 44.
Herring teaches the formation of a biodegradable composite structure comprising one or more layers of woven natural fibers and biodegradable polymer, wherein the composite structure may be a substrate for a printed circuit board. Herring abstract, ¶¶ 1, 12, 75, 104.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the woven natural fibers of Herring into the bio-resin composition of Longdon to create a printed circuit board motivated by the desire to form a specific electronic product as set forth in Longdon.
Claim 10 is rejected as it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have pre-treated the woven natural fibers as Herring teaches the use of waterproofing the printed circuit board and making the fibers hydrophobic would have allowed the fibers to retain their structural integrity through the composite formation process. Herring ¶ 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
