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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has amended the claims to exclude the previously elected species. Per the protocol of MPEP 803.02, examination of the claims was extended and, as a result, prior art that either anticipates and/or obviates alternative species was found. The prior art search was not extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Accordingly, prior art rejections pertaining to the newly found species are presented below with any claims not readable on the found species being withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 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 5 recites “wherein the at least one ethylenically unsaturated compound has an equivalent weight < 120 g/mol”. All of the compounds within the relevant Markush listing of claim 1 contain have an equivalent weight < 120 g/mol. Therefore, claim 5 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, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinmann (GB 1308637A).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 12, Kleinmann teaches polyurethane foams formed from reactive mixtures comprising ethylenically unsaturated compound containing isocyanate-reactive hydrogen compound, activator that promotes polymerization of the unsaturated compound, polyisocyanate compound, isocyanate-reactive compounds, catalyst/activators for making polyurethanes, and blowing agent (Page 1, Lines 60-75; Page 4, Lines 21-34; Examples). Examples are taught using roughly 10.5 wt% of unsaturated monomer (acrylamide) and 0.4 wt% of radical initiator (ethyl azodiisobutyrate) (Page 7, Lines 20-37), which differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the use of (meth)acrylic acid and peroxide. In this regard, Kleinmann teaches acrylic acid (eq wt 72) and methacrylic acid (eq wt 86) are suitable unsaturated compounds (Page 3, Lines 74-77) and benzoyl peroxide and t-butylhydroperoxide are suitable (Page 4, Lines 21-34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize (meth)acrylic acid and peroxides such as benzoyl peroxide and t-butylhydroperoxide within the formulations of Kleinmann, thereby predictably affording workable polyurethane foams. As there is no apparent difference in structure between the (meth)acrylic acid / free radical initiator mixtures claimed and those taught by Kleinmann, such are construed as intrinsically being flame retardant compositions in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinheimer (US 2008/0125504 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 12, Reinheimer teaches reactive mixtures for making polyurethane foams comprising vinyl monomers of a hydroxyvinyl ester and branched at least trifunctional vinyl ester (Abstract; Examples). Reinheimer describes examples comprising polyisocyanate compound, polyol (isocyanate-reactive compound), catalysts for making polyurethanes, blowing agents, surfactant cell stabilizer, 1 wt% of benzoyl peroxide, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate, whereby 14.8 wt% of ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate is used as an additional vinyl ester (¶ 32-44). The particular embodiments of Reinheimer differ with the subject matter claimed in that (meth)acrylic acid is not used as additional vinyl ester. However, Reinheimer teaches acrylic acid (eq wt 72) and methacrylic acid (eq wt 86) are suitable (¶ 17-18). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate with (meth)acrylic acid, thereby predictably affording workable polyurethane foams in accordance with the teachings of Reinheimer. As there is no apparent difference in structure between the (meth)acrylic acid / free radical initiator mixtures claimed and those taught by Reinheimer, such are construed as intrinsically being flame retardant compositions in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,041 in view of Yasumatsu (JP2009-263647A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Specifically, the ‘041 patent claims methods of creating PIR/PUR material from the instantly claimed reactive mixtures (Claim 11). The particular ethylenically unsaturated compounds are described at claims 5 and 16. While ‘041 is directed toward a method of using the instantly claimed reactive mixtures, the reactive mixtures would nonetheless be obvious in view of the copending claims.
While the identities of the peroxide materials are not indicated within the claims, Yasumatsu also pertains to the incorporation of unsaturated compounds into polyurethane foam compositions (Abstract). Yasumatsu teaches the inclusion of peroxide such as benzoyl peroxide procures good curing properties within the foaming compositions (¶ 47). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include the peroxides of Yasumatsu because doing so would further promote curing the ethylenically unsaturated compound containing foam formulations as taught by Yasumatsu. The remaining limitations of the dependent claims are found within the claims of the copending application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Reinheimer, Applicant argues the listed species are not described by the reference. This is not found persuasive as Reinheimer describes (meth)acrylic acid.
With respect to the double patenting rejection, Applicant essentially argues Yasumatsu describes other curing agents besides the peroxides listed within the instant claims. This is not found persuasive. Yasumatsu’s description of alternative free radical initiators does not render the use of peroxides such as benzoyl peroxide any more or less obvious.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights