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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 29, 33, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over
GB-2,342,654 to Harrison et al. (Cited on IDS) with support from U.S. Patent No. 4,195,148 to Hagen et al.
As to claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 29, and 33, Harrison discloses a sprayable polyurethane elastomer comprising an isocyanate functional prepolymer prepared from diphenylmethane diisocyanate with an NCO content of 9.0 wt% and a polyol component that comprises 93.98% by weight of polyol D that is a linear poly(ethylene glycol 1,4-butanediol adipate ester) with an hydroxy number of 55, and 5% of ethylene glycol. The content of the first polyol component 93.9% by weight in sample 4. Harrison discloses wherein each of the processing parameters used for spraying the polyurethane work best for elastomeric compositions having viscosities up to 4,000 cps @ 25°C (Pg.15, 1.15-17). The disclosure of up to 4,000 cps sits overlaps the claimed range of 2500-6800 cps at the same temperature. Accordingly, the skilled artisan when applying the elastomeric polyurethane of Harrison would select reaction parameters and reactants that meet the claimed viscosities with the intent on providing the most efficiency and quality during application (Pg. 15, II.1-15).
Further, with regards to the viscosity of the prepolymer, the components used to prepare the NCO- terminated prepolymer in Harrison are the same as those within the instant specification and the prepolymer has NCO contents within the same range. Therefore, based on similar spray applications the NCO-terminated prepolymer would desirably have the claimed viscosity values to improve efficiency, to reduce use of solvents and to reduce the use of heat during application. This is supported by Hagen that teaches sprayable polyurethanes comprising the same prepolymers as Harrison that have a viscosity of 1,000 cps at room temperature (See Part A, 5:1-11).
With regards to the density of the polyurethane, the sample 4 is Harrison discloses a density of 1086 kg/m3 which sits outside of the claimed range. However, Harrison discloses densities can be adjusted based on the intended use of the resulting decorative layer including values below 1000 kg/m3 (Pg. 14, ll. 25-30). Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the properties desired. Because, Harrison teaches use levels of reactants and desired values of densities the Examiner asserts that the density values is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus, it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the concentration of polyester polyol to achieve the physical properties desired.
Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of a polyester spray polyurethane comprising a NCO-terminated polyester urethane and a curative component comprising 60 to 98 parts of a polyester polyol.
As to claim 36, Harrison discloses the addition of 1 and 1.5% by weight of Dabco 33-
LV as catalyst (sample 1 and 4).
As to claims 37-38, Harrison discloses additives are included such as moisture scavengers, anti-foam agents, and pigments (Samples 1 and 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that Harrison fails to teach or suggest a spray polyester polyurethane as encompassed by the pending claims. In particular, the density of sample 4 is not within the claimed range.
Firstly, Harrison discloses densities can be adjusted based on the intended use of the resulting decorative layer including values below 1000 kg/m3 (Pg. 14, ll. 25-30). Accordingly, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the properties desired. It should be further noted that because Harrison teaches use levels of reactants and desired values of densities the Examiner asserts that the density values is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus, it would be obvious in an optimization process to optimize the concentration of polyester polyol to achieve the physical properties desired.
Secondly, the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of a polyester spray polyurethane with certain properties including density values comprising a NCO-terminated polyester urethane and a curative component comprising 60 to 98 parts of a polyester polyol.
The applicant has argued that the claimed spray polyester polyurethane in combination with the claimed density values has advantageous properties, in particular, increased tensile strength and tear strength, superior elongation performance and improved abrasion resistance.
Sample 4 of Harrison has a tensile strength of 25.1 MPa, an elongation at break of 756%, and a tear strength of 63 kN/m.
Example 4 of the instant specification (believed to be the closest to Harrison, 94% of polyester polyol within the curative component) has a tensile strength of 37 MPa, an elongation at break of 609%, and a tear strength of 62 kg/cm.
The difference between the two elastomers is a higher in tensile strength in example 4. However, the skilled artisan is aware of changes to certain reactants, reaction parameters, and conditions that allow for changes in tensile strength. For example, tensile strength can be increased by adding more polyester polyol to the curative component (note table 2 in the instant specification). As the content of polyester polyol increases, the tensile strength also increases. Even though Harrison teaches a density of one specific example is outside of the claimed range does not constitute a teaching away from the claimed invention. It is noted that the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (MPEP 2121(II)). Further, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments (MPEP 2123 (II)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763