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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the at least one blowing agent” should be “the at least one endothermic chemical blowing agent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the thermally expandable composition after curing has a volume increase compared to the uncured composition in the range of 100 – 3000%”. The scope of the claim is indefinite as the observed volume increase is not solely dependent on the compositional makeup of the thermally expandable composition, but also the particular method by which the compositions are cured (heating temperature and conditions, timeframes). See for instance Table 2. An otherwise identical expandable composition may exhibit a volume increase in or outside the range claimed depending on the curing conditions. As the claim fails to define what particular conditions the volume increase corresponds to, the scope of the claim is unclear.
As claims 2 and 4-12 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 12 recites “further comprises at least one thermoplastic polymer”, but claim 1 already requires “at least one thermoplastic polymer”. It is unclear whether these materials are meant to be one in the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ui (US 2014/0030539 A1) as evidenced by Fauzi (Sains Malaysiana 2015, 44(6), 869-874).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 12, Ui teaches expandable compositions (Abstract) and describes an embodiment in Example 4 comprising epoxy resin, azodicarbonamide blowing agent, dicumyl peroxide (free radical initiator), and dicyandiamide (guanidine derivative) (Table 1). Example 4 of Ui exhibits roughly 125 pbw polymer resins and 10 pbw blowing agent relative to 156 pbw composition (Table 1), equivalent to roughly 80 wt% and 6.4 wt% respectively. 100 pbw of ethylene-vinyl acetate thermoplastic with a melt flow rate of 3.5 g/10 min is used (Table 1; ¶ 164), equivalent to 80 wt% thermoplastic relative to polymer component. The EVA resin is not seen to interfere with the curing mechanism (see Page 36 of the specification). The examples achieve expansion ratios (unfoamed density / foamed density) spanning 9.8 – 11.2 (Table 1), equivalent to volume increases of roughly 880-1020%. The particular embodiments of Ui differ from the subject matter claimed in that an endothermic blowing agent is not used.
In this regard, Ui teaches a range of blowing agents are suitable and either azodicarbonamide or bicarbonate salts, such as sodium bicarbonate, can be used (¶ 47-49). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute azodicarbonamide with other suitable blowing agents such as sodium bicarbonate, thereby predictably affording workable expandable compositions in accordance with the teachings of Ui. As evidenced by Fauzi, bicarbonate salts are known endothermic chemical blowing agents which decompose to water and carbon dioxide (Page 870). The use of endothermic blowing agents would result in compositions substantially free of exothermic blowing agents.
Regarding Claim 6, Ui teaches ammonium bicarbonate can be used (¶ 47-49). The use of ammonium bicarbonate would result in compositions without sodium/potassium bicarbonate.
Regarding Claim 8, Example 4 of Ui exhibits roughly 0.5 pbw dicyandiamide relative to 156 pbw composition (Table 1), equivalent to roughly 0.32 wt%.
Regarding Claim 10, Example 4 of Ui further comprises trimethylolpropane triacrylate (Table 1, ¶ 174; TMPTA), which exhibits a molecular weight of less than 2,500 and an acrylate functionality of 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ui (US 2014/0030539 A1) in view of Kohlstrung (US 2017/0002164 A1) as evidenced by Fauzi (Sains Malaysiana 2015, 44(6), 869-874).
The discussion regarding Ui and Fauzi within ¶ 11-15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Ui differs from the subject matter claimed in that a multifunctional organic acid with at least two acidic functional groups is not described as blowing agent. Kohlstrung is also directed toward thermally expandable compositions (Abstract) and notes endothermic blowing agents such as citric acid are known to be useful for advantages such as not being harmful to health and can provide more uniform foam structure, citric acid being noted as an ecologically sustainable alternative (¶ 11-12, 15, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyacid blowing agents of Kohlstrung within the compositions of Ui because such blowing agents are not harmful to health and can provide more uniform foam structure, and are ecologically sustainable as taught by Kohlstrung. Kohlstrung teaches the polycarboxylic acids such as citric acid or salts thereof (¶ 15-16, 18). It is therefore inferred by Kohlstrung the free acid form can be used. Given the endorthermic blowing agents are identical to those claimed/described within the specification, such blowing agents decompose to form essentially carbon dioxide/water in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2008/0265516 A1) in view of Kohlstrung (US 2017/0002164 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 4-9, Walker teaches thermally expandable compositions (Abstract; Examples) and describes embodiments within the examples comprising epoxy resins/polymer, blowing agent, peroxy curing agent (free radical initiator), and amine curing agent (Table C). The amine curing agent can be guanidine derivatives such as cyanoguanidine / dicyandiamide (¶ 20). Walker suggests embodiments where polymers are present at roughly 52 wt%, blowing agent is present at roughly 4.4 wt%, and amine curing agent is present at roughly 0.63 wt%, whereby thermoplastics such as EVA are in excess of 35 wt% relative to weight of polymers (Table C). Walker describes volume increases consistent with the range claimed (Tables A through D exhibit increases spanning 197-1000%). Walker also describes overlapping blowing agent contents (0.001-17 wt% at ¶ 25; 3-13.76 wt% in examples spanning Tables A through D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Walker suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Walker. See MPEP 2123.
While a numerical quantity of MFR is not provided for thermoplastic(s), Walker expressly teaches the materials should have relatively high melt viscosities so as to assist in resulting self-supporting characteristics (¶ 9, 17; Claim 14). See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal melt flow indexes of the polymers of Walker within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable self-supporting characteristics. Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that endothermic blowing agent is not used.
Kohlstrung is also directed toward thermally expandable compositions (Abstract) and notes endothermic blowing agents such as citric acid are known to be useful for advantages such as not being harmful to health and can provide more uniform foam structure, citric acid being noted as an ecologically sustainable alternative (¶ 11-12, 15, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyacid blowing agents of Kohlstrung within the compositions of Walker because such blowing agents are not harmful to health and can provide more uniform foam structure, and are ecologically sustainable as taught by Kohlstrung. Kohlstrung teaches the polycarboxylic acids such as citric acid or salts thereof (¶ 15-16, 18). It is therefore inferred by Kohlstrung the free acid form can be used. The use of Kohlstrung’s endothermic blowing agents suggest compositions substantially free of exothermic blowing agents. Given the endorthermic blowing agents are identical to those claimed/described within the specification, such blowing agents decompose to form essentially carbon dioxide/water in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 10, Walker describes embodiments that further comprise low molecular weight crosslinkers, such as dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate (Table A), which has a molecular weight of less than 2,500 and a functionality greater than 3.
Regarding Claim 11, Walker describes embodiments comprising terpolymers of ethylene, (meth)acrylate ester, and glycidyl (meth)acrylate (Tables A through C).
Regarding Claim 12, Walker describes embodiments comprising polyethylene-vinyl acetate (Tables A through D), which is not seen to interfere with the curing mechanism (see Page 36 of the specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections with respect to Sauer are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Specifically, the claims require at minimum 35% x 0.35 = 12.25 wt% of thermoplastic polymer relative to total weight of thermally expandable composition whereas Sauer is suggestive of up to 10 wt% (¶ 76). Applicant’s arguments concerning Sauer are therefore moot.
With respect to Ui, Applicant simultaneously argues Ui describes a number of endothermic blowing agents and Ui makes no mention of endothermic blowing agents “in general”. The examiner cannot follow applicant’s argument. Ui plainly teaches endothermic blowing agents can be used. Therefore, the use of endothermic blowing agents would have been obvious in view of the reference.
Applicant argues modifying Ui with Fauzi and/or Kohlstrong would change the operating principle of Ui. This is not found persuasive. Fauzi is merely an evidentiary reference and is not “modifying” Ui in the rejection. With respect to Kohlstrong, Ui is not limited to any particular blowing agent(s) and even expressly indicates endothermic blowing agents can be used. Therefore, the use of endothermic blowing agents would clearly not change the operating principle of Ui’s compositions.
Applicant essentially argues Ui and/or Walker fail to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 in combination with one another. This is not found persuasive. The rejections at issue are not anticipation rejections; they are obviousness rejections. Therefore, the relevant inquiry is not whether Ui or Walker describes a single inventive example that satisfies each and every limitation claimed, but rather whether the subject matter claimed would have been obvious in view of the applied prior art. The examiner maintains the rejections of record meet all limitations claimed and provide sufficient motivations/rationales to support the combination of references where appropriate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759