DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-20, 23, 24, and 26-31 as amended are pending, with claims 10, 12, 13, and 15 withdrawn.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 17-20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/085022 A1 (“Joshi”) in view of WO 2018/036943 A1 (“Meyer”) as evidenced by Zlatanic et al., “Polyurethane molded foams with high content of hyperbranched polyols from soybean oil,” J. Cellular Plastics 51(3) 289-306 (2014) (“Zlatanic”).
The citations of WO 2018/036943 A1 refer to English language equivalent US 2019/0225735.
As to claim 1, 4, 8, 17, 26, 30, and 31, Joshi teaches a filament wound fiber composite material including polyurethane forming materials (abstract; teaching polyisocyanate and active hydrogen) by applying reactive mixture to a filament (p. 18) and then wound around a mandrel (pp. 19-20). Joshi teaches that the resin impregnated filament should have good compaction and zero void space (p. 25), and thus suggests compact polyurethane. Since the fibers are impregnated with resin, this suggests that the fibers will be at least partially embedded in the compact polyurethane. Joshi teaches multiple windings on the mandrel (p. 20), which suggests that fiber will be wound around the compact polyurethane.
Joshi exemplifies the use of glass fiber throughout the examples (p. 33).
Joshi teaches that the resin composition includes a polyisocyanate composition and active hydrogen resin (p. 3). Joshi teaches that the active hydrogen compounds include polyols having functionality of 2 to 6. (p. 7). Joshi teaches preferred polyols are polyether polyols prepared by reacting an alkylene oxide with an initiator compound, including trifunctional initiators (p. 9, last para.), where propylene oxide and ethylene oxide are preferred alkylene oxides. As such, Joshi contemplates polyols of at least a functionality of three formed using ethylene oxide only, thus providing no end groups of propylene oxide. As an example, Joshi teaches examples B11 and B12 (p. 50) in which the polyols are diethylene glycol and Jeffol G 31-35 polyol, which is a glycerin initiated polyoxypropylene-polyethylene polyol (p. 27), in amounts exceeding 15% by weight, thus trifunctional ethoxylated polyether polyol, and an ethoxylated polyether polyol having three primary hydroxyl groups. Further, it is known that this product is a polyethylene oxide capped triol, as evidenced by Zlatanic, p. 292, such that this exemplary composition would have the recited amount of polyols having propylene or butylene oxide end groups as required by claims 1, 4, 17, and 30. This composition also lacks polyols having a propylene oxide or butylene oxide end group as required by claim 8.
Joshi does not exemplify the recited polyol composition having the recited isocyanate index. However, Joshi teaches that the isocyanate index for such formulations typically ranges from 70 to150 (p. 17), which roughly overlaps the recited range, and as such, modifying the composition of Joshi within the recited index range, is an obvious variation suggested by Joshi.
Joshi teaches compact polyurethane, but not the density thereof. Meyer teaches polyurethanes for filament winding (para. 0039) using similar isocyanates and polyols, and teaches a preferable density of 1000-1300 g/L (para. 0010) for compact polyurethane, which is within the ranges of claims 1, 26, and 31, and thus the preparation of compact polyurethane in the recited density range is an obvious modification suggested by Meyer.
As to claims 6 and 23, Joshi as evidenced by Zlatanic shows that Jeffol G31-35 is a propylene oxide adduct of glycerol, thus a triol as required by claim 20, endcapped (reacted) with ethylene oxide.
As to claims 7 and 20, Joshi does not exemplify the recited polyol. Joshi teaches the use of polyether polyols, including polyether polyols having primary hydroxyl groups (p. 7, last para.) where an equivalent weight of 85-300, where polyether polyol can be initiated from trimethylolpropane with ethylene oxide (p. 9, last para.), which provides a structure of formula II with l, m, n, and o being 1, and p, q, and r averaging between 0.5 and 5.5 ethylene oxide units each, which roughly meets the recitation for p, q, and r, as required by claims 7 and 20. Joshi teaches using the smaller polyol present in 40 to 70 wt % (p. 8, last para.). Given these teachings, it would be obvious to use a polyols of TMP and ethylene oxide as a polyol, including having ethylene oxide units in the recited range, as suggested by Joshi.
As to claims 9 and 18, Joshi does not exemplify the polyether polyol without propylene oxide or butylene oxide groups. However, Joshi teaches that the polyether polyols can be formed from preferably ethylene oxide, and may be individually added (p. 9, third para.). As such, Joshi contemplates compositions having entirely ethylene oxide based polyols.
As to claim 19, Joshi does not exemplify ethoxylated polyether polyols based on the triol of formula (I), as Jeffol G 31-35 is based on glycerol. However, Joshi, p. 9, teaches that polyether polyols can be made from initiators including trimethylolpropane, which meet the formula (I) where l, m, n, and o are each 1; as such, Joshi suggests that triols can be formed from ethylene oxide and initiators which meet the recited formula.
As to claim 24, Joshi teaches that the mandrel used for winding is typically cylindrical (p. 20), which is rotationally symmetrical.
As to claim 27, Joshi teaches using glass fiber roving (p. 33).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/085022 A1 (“Joshi”) in view of WO 2018/036943 A1 (“Meyer”) as evidenced by Zlatanic et al., “Polyurethane molded foams with high content of hyperbranched polyols from soybean oil,” J. Cellular Plastics 51(3) 289-306 (2014) (“Zlatanic”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 4,727,199 (“King”).
As to claims 3 and 16, Joshi as evidenced by Zlatanic suggests that Jeffol G31-35 is a propylene oxide adduct of glycerol, thus a triol as required by claim 20, endcapped (reacted) with ethylene oxide, which suggests reacting only ethylene oxide with an initiating polyol (adduct of glycerin and propylene oxide) having three functionalities. Joshi does not discuss reacting these components in the presence of a catalyst. However, it is well known to produce ethoxylated polyols using catalyst, for example from King, 2:15-55, and thus it is known that polyether polyols may be produced in the presence of a catalyst to catalyze the reaction.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/085022 A1 (“Joshi”) as evidenced by Zlatanic et al., “Polyurethane molded foams with high content of hyperbranched polyols from soybean oil,” J. Cellular Plastics 51(3) 289-306 (2014) (“Zlatanic”).
As to claim 14, Joshi teaches a filament wound fiber composite material including mixing polyurethane forming materials (abstract; teaching polyisocyanate and active hydrogen) by applying reactive mixture to a filament (p. 18) and then wound around a mandrel (pp. 19-20) and curing (pp. 20-21), thus reacting the polyol and isocyanate to form polyurethane resin. Joshi teaches that the resin impregnated filament should have good compaction and zero void space (p. 25), and thus suggests compact polyurethane. Since the fibers are impregnated with resin, this suggests that the fibers will be at least partially embedded in the compact polyurethane. Joshi teaches multiple windings on the mandrel (p. 20), which suggests that fiber will be wound around the compact polyurethane.
Joshi exemplifies the use of glass fiber throughout the examples (p. 33).
Joshi teaches that the resin composition includes a polyisocyanate composition and active hydrogen resin (p. 3). Joshi teaches that the active hydrogen compounds include polyols having functionality of 2 to 6. (p. 7). Joshi teaches preferred polyols are polyether polyols prepared by reacting an alkylene oxide with an initiator compound, including trifunctional initiators (p. 9, last para.), where propylene oxide and ethylene oxide are preferred alkylene oxides. As such, Joshi contemplates polyols of at least a functionality of three formed using ethylene oxide only, thus providing no end groups of propylene oxide. As an example, Joshi teaches examples B11 and B12 (p. 50) in which the polyols are diethylene glycol and Jeffol G 31-35 polyol, which is a glycerin initiated polyoxypropylene-polyethylene polyol (p. 27), in amounts exceeding 15% by weight, thus trifunctional ethoxylated polyether polyol. Further, it is known that this product is a polyethylene oxide capped triol, as evidenced by Zlatanic, p. 292, such that this exemplary composition would have the recited amount of polyols having propylene or butylene oxide end groups as required.
Joshi does not exemplify the recited polyol composition having the recited isocyanate index. However, Joshi teaches that the isocyanate index for such formulations typically ranges from 70 to150 (p. 17), which roughly overlaps the recited range, and as such, modifying the composition of Joshi within the recited index range, is an obvious variation suggested by Joshi.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/085022 A1 (“Joshi”) in view of WO 2018/036943 A1 (“Meyer”) as evidenced by Zlatanic et al., “Polyurethane molded foams with high content of hyperbranched polyols from soybean oil,” J. Cellular Plastics 51(3) 289-306 (2014) (“Zlatanic”) as applied to claim 27, further in view of US 3,610,420 (“Sampson”).
As to claim 28, Joshi does not discuss the cross sectional shape of the roving. However, glass fiber rovings are known for pipe construction for mandrel winding, including rovings having rectangular cross section, as known from Sampson, Figs. 2-4, 3:42-50; as such, the use of rectangular rovings is an obvious choice for glass fiber roving for filament winding.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/085022 A1 (“Joshi”) in view of WO 2018/036943 A1 (“Meyer”) as evidenced by Zlatanic et al., “Polyurethane molded foams with high content of hyperbranched polyols from soybean oil,” J. Cellular Plastics 51(3) 289-306 (2014) (“Zlatanic”) as applied to claim 27, further in view of US 2015/0284289 (“Gu”).
As to claim 29, Joshi does not state the fineness (while Joshi exemplifies the use of Tex 1900 fibers, it is not clear whether this refers to the fineness or is a tradename). Gu teaches sizing compositions for filament winding, and teaches that typical glass fiber rovings for filament windings are in the range of 600 to 4500 Tex (para. 0102), which is within the recited range, and therefore the use of rovings of this type are an obvious modification known in the art of filament winding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, on review of a machine translation of WO 2021/048334 A1, the amendments to the specification including discussion of density appears to be consistent with the PCT application of which the present application is a national stage application.
Applicant’s argument that the use of ethylene oxide capped polyols is generally avoided is unpersuasive. Specifically, as discussed above, Joshi as evidenced by Zlatanic clearly teaches examples using such polyols, specifically Jeffol G31-35. Furthermore, while not exemplified, Joshi clearly contemplates using resins in the recited isocyanate index. As such, both the use of primary hydroxyl polyols and the isocyanate index as claimed are suggested by Joshi as evidenced by Zlatanic.
Applicant’s assertion that the use of the ethylene oxide capped polyols provides surprising results is not persuasive. The effect discussed by applicant, based on the examples, appears dependent on the use of ethylene oxide capped polyols, not on isocyanate index. Since the use of ethylene oxide capped polyols is already known in the art from Joshi, this appears, at best, to simply be an observation of an effect caused by a prior art material. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It is also noted that foaming (such as bubbling) is a function of the relative speed of water-isocyanate reaction vs the polyol isocyanate reaction (see Zlatanic, p. 296). As such, it would be recognized that different degrees of bubbling would depend upon relative reactivities of polyols.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764