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 I. in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/2026.
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 1-4 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.
Applicants’ recitation “thereby forming an APP- pentaerythritol polymer” following the recited dissolution step and reaction step of the of the claims is confusing as to intent because it cannot be determined what (A.) materials and/or (B.) compositional arrangements are intended to be a part of the thereby formed APP-pentaerythritol polymer that is recited by the claims. First, (B.) it is not seen, nor can it be readily ascertained from the evidence of record, how or if a polymer arrangement of APP and pentaerythritol are intended through the recitation “thereby forming an APP-pentaerythritol polymer”. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether a polymer arrangement of APP and pentaerythritol or some other polymer arrangement is intended through the recitation “thereby forming an APP- pentaerythritol polymer”. Second, (A.) claims are confusing as to intent because it cannot be determined what materials are intended to be included in the “APP-pentaerythritol polymer” formed following the recited dissolution step and reaction step of the of the claims to be then further processed through the additional operations of the claims. Without the composition of the “APP-pentaerythritol polymer” being identified by the claims it cannot be determined if the formed “APP-pentaerythritol polymer” is intended to be made up of (i.) the APP and the pentaerythritol identified by the claims, (ii.) an arrangement comprising the APP, pentaerythritol, melamine resin powder, urea resin, ammonium chloride and water, and/or (iii.) some other combination of materials of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, claims have been treated as if the “APP-pentaerythritol polymer” set forth by the claims is one comprising the APP, pentaerythritol, melamine resin, liquid-phase urea resin, and ammonium chloride that are provided through the dissolution and reaction steps that proceed the formation of the “APP-pentaerythritol polymer”.
Claims are confusing as to intent because the basis for the variously recited ranges ofparts by weight values set forth by claims 1-4 can not be definitively determined. In that the claims do not definitively establish what number of parts constitutes the total number of parts of the formulations formed upon which the ranges of weight values are based, the ranges of amounts and relevant proportions can not be definitively determined. Additionally, though it is noted that some recited parts by weight values are identified as being relative to other recited ranges of parts by weight values, the ambiguity is not resolved because it still can not be determined how the recited ranges of parts by weight values correlate with the other ranges of parts by weight values of the claims, and it also does not resolve, and even exacerbates, the issues concerning a lack of basis for the other recited parts by weight values recited by the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Similarly, claims are confusing as to intent because the basis for the recited ranges of percent values can not be definitively determined. In that the claims do not establish a standard upon which the recited ranges of percentage are based, the ranges of amounts and relevant proportions can not be definitively determined. It can not be definitively determined if the wt % values of the claims are intended to be based on the total composition, just the liquid-phase urea resin composition, or some other totality within which the liquid-phase urea resin composition is formed.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, the basis has been treated as the totality of just the “liquid-phase urea resin” defined by the reaction step operation of the claims.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertain if claims are intended to require inclusion of a silicone resin. The recited basis for the range of platinum catalyst parts by weight values being “relative to a hundred part by weight of a silicone resin” does not positively recite that a silicon resin is included in the process operations defined by the claims. Stated another way, the recitation by reference to “a silicon resin” in claim 1 without “a silicon resin” being previously, positively set forth by the claims is confusing as to intent because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Reciting another component’s presence to be “relative to 100 parts by weight of a silicon resin” when the silicon resin is not previously introduced by the process operations of the claims is confusing as to intent because it can not be determined how or when in the process operations defined by the claims a silicon resin is introduced or if a silicon resin is even introduced at all.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, the final step of claim 1 (the mixing step) has been treated as a mixing of the following materials: (i.)the “APP-pentaerythritol polymer” as understood to be defined above and resolved through the aging and pulverization steps defined by the claim, (ii.) a platinum catalyst, and (iii.) a silicon resin.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the APP-pentaerythritol polymer powder" in the 19th and 20th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained what materials is being referred back to be the reference back to "the APP-pentaerythritol polymer powder" when an "APP-pentaerythritol polymer powder" is not previously identified or defined by the process operations of the claims. Though applicants recite pulverization of the APP-pentaerythritol polymer in a lump form and recite particle sizes, the claims never identify formation of an "APP-pentaerythritol polymer powder" in the pulverization step or any other operation of this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: To the degree that the limitations of applicants’ recited processes can be ascertained {see rejection(s) above under 35USC112}, the prior art, including CN-113234380 taken alone or in combination with other prior art, is insufficient in its teaching or fair suggestion of processes as defined by the instant claims. Though the prior art recognizes the use of melamine, APP and pentaerythritol in fire retardant silicon resin based compositions, it is insufficient in it teaching or fair suggestion of processes for forming these compositions through the combination of the melamine, APP and pentaerythritol into the resin through a reaction step involving mixing liquid-phase urea resin and ammonium chloride with the fire retardant materials as defined along with the other process operations set forth by the claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jordan, IV et al. and KR-20230086847-A are cited for their disclosure of relevant fire retardant preparations and resin formulations in the related arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765