DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after Mar 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of polyether polys which are the addition product of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and glycerol in the reply filed on 11/25/25 is acknowledged. Furthermore, Applicant’s election without traverse of silicon surfactants in the reply filed 06/08/25 is also acknowledged. The claims that read on the two elected species at the same time are 1-5, 7, 9, 12-20 and 23-43. As such, non-elected claims 6, 8,10-11 and 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 13, 16 and 20 rare ejected 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.
All of these claims are deemed to be indefinite because they set forth ingredients by their trademark names, but the underlining components and their concentration amounts, can change overtime, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
EXAMINATION NOTE:
Applicant’s independent claim 1 has the limitation wherein the low density polyurethane foam has a density of from about 0.25 lb/ft3 to about 0.45 lb/ft3. The corresponding values in terms of kg/m3 is about 4.0046 kg/m3 to about 7.2083 kg/m3.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 12-20 and 23-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WADA et al. WO 2018096101 A1 as evidenced by its corresponding filing U.S. 2021/0115181 A1 which will be used for the following citations.
Wada et al. discloses an open cell rigid polyurethane foam having a uniform and low density, a method for producing an open cell rigid polyurethane foam is provided, the method comprising foaming a mixed liquid of (1) a polyol-containing component comprising (a) a polyol mixture, (b) a catalyst, and (c) a foaming agent (c), and (2) a polyisocyanate component. The foaming agent consists of water and an adduct of a primary or secondary amine compound and carbon dioxide, the amount of the water is 10 to 80 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the polyol mixture, and the amount of the adduct is 1 to 20 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the polyol mixture, see abstract.
Examples 1-3 disclose polyurethane spray foams based on a component comprising a polyether polyol having hydroxyl value of 28 mgKOH/g (polyol B1) (Note: reads on applicant’s polyether polyol component of independent claim 1 and the dependent claims), water, catalysts, flame retardant (tris(2-chloropropyl)phosphate (TMCPP)), foam stabilizers (a silicon surfactant (Tegostab B8002) and a component comprising polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate (Sumidur® 44V20L) (Note: reads on applicant’s polyisocyanate component of independent claim 1 and the dependent claims). The volumetric mixing ratio of the polyether polyol composition (containing all components except the polyisocyanate component) to the polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate (Sumidur® 44V20L) component was about 1:1.
Wada et al.’s said examples differ from applicant’s claimed invention in two ways: 1) the density of the foamed polyurethanes made in these examples was from about 12.8 to 13.3 kg/m3 which is outside of applicant’s claimed range of 4.0046 kg/m3 to 7.2083 kg/m3 as set forth in independent claim 1, and 2) these examples use a 1:1 mixing volume ratio of the polyether poly composition to polyisocyante which is outside of applicant’s claimed range of 1.2:1 to 2:1 as set forth in independent claim 1.
Wanda et al.’s paragraph [0104] reads as followed: “The mixture ratio (volume ratio) of the polyol-containing composition to the polyisocyanate component (d) is not particularly limited as long as the effects of the invention are not impaired, but preferably 1:0.5 to 1:2, more preferably 1:0.8 to 1:1.2, and further preferably 1:0.9 to 1:1.1, and yet further preferably 1:1.”. When said mixing ratio are reversed to polyisocyanate to polyether polyol composition, the preferably ratio is 0.5:1 to 2:1 and more preferably from 0.8:1 to 1.2:1. Please note that Applicant’s claimed volume mixing ratio range of 1.2:1 to 2:1, as set forth in independent claim 1, falls wholly within the Wanda et al.’s preferred range and partially within Wanda et al.’s more preferred range.
Wanda et al.’s paragraph [0123] reads as followed: “The core density of the open cell rigid polyurethane foam of the invention is preferably 7 to 25 kg/m3 and more preferably 10 to 20 kg/m.sup.3. The adjustment of the core density of the above rigid polyurethane foam within the above range is preferred in terms of the reduction in weight of materials. In particular, the above core density of more than or equal to 7 kg/m.sup.3 is advantageous in maintaining good thermal conductivity. Furthermore, the core density of the above rigid polyurethane foam of less than or equal to 25 kg/m.sup.3 is preferred in terms of the material cost.”. Please note that Applicant’s independent claim 1 polyurethane foam density range of about 4.0046 kg/m3 to about 7.2083 kg/m3 overlaps Wanda et al.’s preferred polyurethane foam density range of preferably 7 to 25 kg/m3.
Furthermore, Wanda et al discloses that the isocyanate index of the polyisocyanate reactant is preferably 30 to 100 (see page 15, lines 1-4). The density is preferably 7 to 25 kg/m3 (see page 19, lines 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Wanda et al.’s disclosure of paragraph [0123] as strong motivation to actually make foamed polyurethane that have a density that falls within the upper density range of Applicant’s independent claim 1. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Likewise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Wanda et al.’s disclosure of paragraph [0104] as strong motivation to actually make foamed polyurethane that fall within Applicant’s claimed volume mixing ratio range of 1.2:1 to 2:1, as set forth in independent claim 1. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764