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 .
Response to Amendment
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Claim Interpretation
It is noted claims 1 and 25 have been amended to utilize the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”, which limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976). Accordingly, the foamable compositions are construed as excluding materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention, presently seen to be the creation of flame retardant foam (¶ 2 of the specification).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites proviso “(i)” and “(iii)”, but not “(ii)”. It is suggested “(iii)” be changed to “(ii)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 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.
Claims 26, 28, and 30 depend from claim 24, but claim 24 has been cancelled. Therefore, the intended scope of the claims is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are construed as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the foamable composition is substantially completely of a polyol”, which renders the intended scope of the claim unclear. From Applicant’s remarks, it appears a limitation requiring the compositions being substantially completely free of a polyol is intended. Claim 1 is construed as such in the interest of compact prosecution.
As claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 25 recites “the foamable composition is substantially completely of a polyol”, which renders the intended scope of the claim unclear. From Applicant’s remarks, it appears a limitation requiring the compositions being substantially completely free of a polyol is intended. Claim 25 is construed as such in the interest of compact prosecution.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the foamable composition is substantially completely of a polyol”. To the extent claim 1 is meant to indicate the foamable composition is substantially completely free of a polyol, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. In the present case, the limitation at issue is not found within the specification as originally filed. Rather, written support is only found for compositions substantially free of “conventional polyols”, such as those with a hydroxyl-terminated backbone of a member selected from the group consisting of polyether, polyester, polycarbonate, polydiene, and polycaprolactone (see for instance ¶ 29, 33). Also note the excludable “conventional polyols” are different from that of the reactive compounds (¶ 17). Written support is not found for compositions free of all polyols (inclusive of materials such as “non-conventional” polyols or chain extenders).
As claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 25 recites “the foamable composition is substantially completely of a polyol”. To the extent claim 25 is meant to indicate the foamable composition is substantially completely free of a polyol, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. In the present case, the limitation at issue is not found within the specification as originally filed. Rather, written support is only found for compositions substantially free of “conventional polyols”, such as those with a hydroxyl-terminated backbone of a member selected from the group consisting of polyether, polyester, polycarbonate, polydiene, and polycaprolactone (see for instance ¶ 29, 33). Also note the excludable “conventional polyols” are different from that of the reactive compounds (¶ 17). Written support is not found for compositions free of all polyols (inclusive of materials such as “non-conventional” polyols or chain extenders).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 requires that the foamable composition is substantially completely free of a polyol. To the extent claim 30 is meant to depend from claim 1, claim 30 recites “wherein the foamable composition is substantially completely free of a polyol comprising a hydroxyl-terminated backbone of a member selected from the group consisting of polyether, polyester, polycarbonate, polydiene and polycaprolactone”. Since claim 1 excludes any additional polyol inclusive of those of claim 30, claim 30 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2022/0315757 A1) as evidenced by Albemarle (RB-79 Information).
The examiner has reviewed priority document PCT/CN2019/097107 of Zhao and finds support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) exhibiting TVOC at most 220 μg C / g and LOI of preferably at least 27% (Abstract; ¶ 95). The foams are derived from 100-120 wt% of isocyanate, 0-40 wt% of isocyanate-reactive substances such as polyols, 0-20 wt% of chain extender/crosslinkers, 25-45 wt% of flame retardant, 2-15 wt% of blowing agent, 1-5 wt% of catalyst, and 0-2 wt% of additives (Claims 10, 15), suggestive of compositions substantially completely free of polyol, such as those of claim 30. The blowing agent comprises water (¶ 77). The flame retardant used is a mixture of melamine, expandable graphite, and further liquid flame retardant such as bromine-containing diester/ether diol of tetrabromophthalic anhydride (“RB-79”; ¶ 69-75), construed as a reactive compound that is a halogenated aromatic ester/ether.
Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols, 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), and 10-40 wt% of RB-79 (¶ 64, 72, 75). As evidenced by Albermarle, RB-79 has an OH number of 200-235, which corresponds to an equivalent weight of roughly 239-281. The combination of references therefore suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of RB-79 with an eq weight of 218 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to roughly 61%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the reference describes flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams (Abstract). The foams are derived from 100-120 wt% of isocyanate, 0-40 wt% of isocyanate-reactive substances such as polyols, 0-20 wt% of chain extender/crosslinkers, 25-45 wt% of flame retardant, 2-15 wt% of blowing agent, 1-5 wt% of catalyst, and 0-2 wt% of additives (Claims 10, 15), suggestive of compositions substantially completely free of polyol. The blowing agent comprises water (¶ 77). The flame retardant used is a mixture of melamine, expandable graphite, and further liquid flame retardant such as bromine-containing diester/ether diol of tetrabromophthalic anhydride (“RB-79”; ¶ 69-75), construed as a reactive compound that is a halogenated aromatic ester/ether.
Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols, 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), and 10-40 wt% of RB-79 (¶ 64, 72, 75). As evidenced by Albermarle, RB-79 has an OH number of 200-235, which corresponds to an equivalent weight of roughly 239-281. The combination of references therefore suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of RB-79 with an eq weight of 218 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to roughly 61%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the reference describes flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2022/0315757 A1) in view of Curtis (WO 2019/033212 A1).
The examiner has reviewed priority document PCT/CN2019/097107 of Zhao and finds support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) exhibiting TVOC at most 220 μg C / g and LOI of preferably at least 27% (Abstract; ¶ 95). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72).
Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the inclusion of reactive compound b. In this regard, Curtis teaches phosphate polyols suitable for polyurethane foams (Abstract; ¶ 3, 24, 36-37). The polyols are non-halogenated phosphate esters (Page 24). Curtis teaches the polyols provide improved flame retardancy to the resulting foams (¶ 59-64), whereby most or all of the polyols used to create foam can be replaced with phosphate polyol (¶ 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the polyols of Zhao with those of Curtis because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy as taught by Curtis. Curtis teaches the polyols have OH values greater than 240, such as an OH value of 310 (eq wt ~ 181) (¶ 11, 58). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of phosphate polyol with an OH value of 310 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 65%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
As noted above Zhao indicates 0 wt% of polyols can be used and Curtis teaches most or all of the polyols used to create foam can be replaced with phosphate polyol (¶ 27). Therefore, the combination of references suggest embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol, such as those of claim 30. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) (Abstract). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72).
Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the inclusion of reactive compound b. In this regard, Curtis teaches phosphate polyols suitable for polyurethane foams (Abstract; ¶ 3, 24, 36-37). The polyols are non-halogenated phosphate esters (Page 24). Curtis teaches the polyols provide improved flame retardancy to the resulting foams (¶ 59-64), whereby most or all of the polyols used to create foam can be replaced with phosphate polyol (¶ 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the polyols of Zhao with those of Curtis because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy as taught by Curtis. Curtis teaches the polyols have OH values greater than 240, such as an OH value of 310 (eq wt ~ 181) (¶ 11, 58). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of phosphate polyol with an OH value of 310 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 65%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123.
As noted above Zhao indicates 0 wt% of polyols can be used and Curtis teaches most or all of the polyols used to create foam can be replaced with phosphate polyol (¶ 27). Therefore, the combination of references suggest embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2022/0315757 A1) in view of Krupa (US 2008/0051481 A1).
The examiner has reviewed priority document PCT/CN2019/097107 of Zhao and finds support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) exhibiting TVOC at most 220 μg C / g and LOI of preferably at least 27% (Abstract; ¶ 95). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72).
Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the inclusion of reactive compound b. In this regard, Krupa teaches the use of halogenated/brominated polyols for use within polyurethane foams (Abstract), which provide enhanced flame retardancy and smoke characteristics (¶ 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the halogenated/brominated polyols of Krupa within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy and smoke characteristics as taught by Krupa. Krupa describes embodiments where the polyols are halogenated aromatic esters (¶ 53-54). Krupa teaches the use of further polyols in combination with the halogenated/brominated polyols is optional (¶ 17, 33), thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol, such as those of claim 30. Krupa teaches the brominated polyol has OH values spanning 200-700 and the halogenated polyol has OH values spanning 100-800 (¶ 12, 15). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of polyols with an OH value of 500 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 75%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) (Abstract). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72).
Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the inclusion of reactive compound b. In this regard, Krupa teaches the use of halogenated/brominated polyols for use within polyurethane foams (Abstract), which provide enhanced flame retardancy and smoke characteristics (¶ 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the halogenated/brominated polyols of Krupa within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy and smoke characteristics as taught by Krupa. Krupa describes embodiments where the polyols are halogenated aromatic esters (¶ 53-54). Krupa teaches the use of further polyols in combination with the halogenated/brominated polyols is optional (¶ 17, 33), thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol. Krupa teaches the brominated polyol has OH values spanning 200-700 and the halogenated polyol has OH values spanning 100-800 (¶ 12, 15). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of polyols with an OH value of 500 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 75%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2022/0315757 A1) in view of Woillemont (EP 607725 A1) as evidenced by Cardenas (US 2024/0262951 A1). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document PCT/CN2019/097107 of Zhao and finds support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) exhibiting TVOC at most 220 μg C / g and LOI of preferably at least 27% (Abstract; ¶ 95). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72). Zhao teaches the foams find utility in sound insulation and damping packing (Abstract). Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed in that the polyols used lack one or both a halogen and a phosphate moiety. In this regard, Woillemont teaches brominated diols suitable for polyurethane foams (¶ 23-25). Woillemont teaches the diols confer excellent acoustic / sound absorption characteristics (¶ 5-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the diols of Woillemont within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would confer favorable acoustic / sound absorption characteristics as taught by Woillemont. Woillemont teaches diols such as B-251, which may be used as sole polyol (¶ 48-52) thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol, such as those of claim 30. As evidenced by Cardenas, B-251 is an halogenated aliphatic ether having a OH value of 330 (¶ 103; eq wt ~ 170). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of phosphate polyol with an OH value of 330 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 66%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) (Abstract). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72). Zhao teaches the foams find utility in sound insulation and damping packing (Abstract). Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed in that the polyols used lack one or both a halogen and a phosphate moiety. In this regard, Woillemont teaches brominated diols suitable for polyurethane foams (¶ 23-25). Woillemont teaches the diols confer excellent acoustic / sound absorption characteristics (¶ 5-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the diols of Woillemont within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would confer favorable acoustic / sound absorption characteristics as taught by Woillemont. Woillemont teaches diols such as B-251, which may be used as sole polyol (¶ 48-52) thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol. As evidenced by Cardenas, B-251 is an halogenated aliphatic ether having a OH value of 330 (¶ 103; eq wt ~ 170). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of phosphate polyol with an OH value of 330 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 66%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2022/0315757 A1) in view of Barda (EP 97448 A1).
The examiner has reviewed priority document PCT/CN2019/097107 of Zhao and finds support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) exhibiting TVOC at most 220 μg C / g and LOI of preferably at least 27% (Abstract; ¶ 95). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72). Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed in that the polyols used lack one or both a halogen and a phosphate moiety. In this regard, Barda teaches the use of halogenated aliphatic polyol esters (Abstract), which provide enhanced flame retardancy to polyurethane foams (Page 9, Lines 10-23; Page 10, Line 33 to Page 11, Line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the halogenated polyol esters of Barda within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy as taught by Barda. Barda teaches the halogenated polyol esters can be used in part or for all of the polyol used within the polyurethane compositions depending on the degree of flame retardancy required (Page 9, Lines 20-23) thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol. Barda teaches embodiments where the ester has a hydroxyl number of 255 (Page 14, Lines 1-13; eq wt ~ 220). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of polyols with an OH value of 220 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 60.5%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao teaches polyurethane spray foams (isocyanate-based polymer foams) (Abstract). Zhao teaches examples using polyether/polyester polyols, chain extender, melamine flame retardant, catalyst, water blowing agent, and isocyanate (Table 1). Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% of polyether/polyester polyols, 0-20 wt% chain extender, and 5-30 wt% of melamine (¶ 64, 67, 72). Zhao differs from the subject matter claimed in that the polyols used lack one or both a halogen and a phosphate moiety. In this regard, Barda teaches the use of halogenated aliphatic polyol esters (Abstract), which provide enhanced flame retardancy to polyurethane foams (Page 9, Lines 10-23; Page 10, Line 33 to Page 11, Line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the halogenated polyol esters of Barda within the compositions of Zhao because doing so would provide enhanced flame retardancy as taught by Barda. Barda teaches the halogenated polyol esters can be used in part or for all of the polyol used within the polyurethane compositions depending on the degree of flame retardancy required (Page 9, Lines 20-23) thus suggesting embodiments where the foamable compositions are substantially completely free of additional polyol. Barda teaches embodiments where the ester has a hydroxyl number of 255 (Page 14, Lines 1-13; eq wt ~ 220). As Zhao teaches 0-40 wt% polyols and 5-30 wt% of melamine (eq wt ~ 42), the combination of references suggests reactive compound ISO equivalents that overlap the range claimed (e.g. 40 wt% of polyols with an OH value of 220 and 5 wt% melamine would be equivalent to 60.5%). 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 the combination of references suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 2123. Given the references describe flame retardant foams, the combination of references is not seen to contain additional materials that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues the prior art fails to meet limitations associated with reactive compound being halogenated aromatic/aliphatic ethers/esters or halogenated/non-halogenated phosphate esters. This is not found persuasive as the compounds of the prior art fall within the scope of the claims for reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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