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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is confusing as to intent because in that claim 5 is already claiming a flexible polyurethane foam product it can not be determined how claim 14 is intended to further define that product by reciting “a polyurethane product” that comprise that product of claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB-1,565,124.
GB-1,565,124 discloses methods for reducing volatile organic compounds, particularly toluene diamine (TDA), through the use of aliphatic isocyanates, including isophorone diisocyanate(IPDI) (see pages 1,2, 4, 9-11, Examples and Tables).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB-1,565,124.
GB-1,565,124 methods for producing flexible polyurethane foams and foams formed therefrom prepared by mixing and reacting materials including toluene diisocyanate(TDI) and aliphatic isocyanates inclusive of isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) [note: claims 2 & 12] in amounts as claimed [note, also-claims 16,17 and 19], polyether polyols, including polyoxypropylene polyols with no oxethylene group (0%) contents and functionalities as claimed, blowing agent and amine catalysts (see pages 1,2, 4, 9-11, Examples and Tables).
GB-1,565,124 differs from applicants’ claims in that hydroxyl numbers as claimed are not particularly required. However, GB-1,565,124 offers operation within ranges of molecular weights and functionalities (see page 4) for preparing the polyurethanes of their invention which correspond with an overlap with the OH numbers (OH#) of applicants’ claims { OH# = (56,100 X Functionality(F))/(molecular weight(MW)) }. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized polyols having any OH# corresponding to the overlapping F’s and MW’s provided for through GB-1,565,124’s disclosure for the purpose of achieving acceptably developed flexible polyurethane foams in order to arrive at the products and processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, GB-1,565,124 does not require that its preparations be formed using polyurea polyols or hexamethylene diisocyanate. Accordingly, difference in this regard is not evident. Regarding claims 6, 7 and 20, owing to the closeness of the material make-up of the foams formed and their application in forming good structural products of the claimed concern [note, also-claims 13-15] (see page 7 lines 12-18), it is held that it would necessarily follow that products having tear and tensile strengths as claimed would be formed as well. Regarding claim 8, in that products scavenged of amines including TDA are disclosed by GB-1,565,124 {see page 1 and Examples} it is held that levels of 2,4-TDA as claimed would necessarily follow.
Regarding claim 18, though ethylene oxide contents as claimed are not particularly required, utilization of ethylene and propylene oxide combinations in polyether polyol build are disclosed {see page 4 lines 10-29). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized any combination of ethylene oxide to propylene oxide proportions provided for through GB-1,565,124 in performing the processes of GB-1,565,124 for the purpose of achieving acceptably developed articles for use in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jacobs et al. is cited for its relevant disclosure of materials and flexible foams in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765