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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-22, 24-25, 34-36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,263,411 to Bak
As to claims 1-2, 7-16, 24-25, 34-36, and 40, Bak discloses a process for preparing a polyurethane comprising reacting a isocyanate-reactive polyol component with an polyisocyanate component in the presence of a copper carboxylate including acetates (Cu(II) naphthenic in mineral spirits, 8% of Cu or 12% of Cu) in the presence of tertiary amine containing polyols/surfactants such as Pluracol 355 tetrol that is represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
110
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bak discloses 0.48% and 0.3% of copper catalyst (Table II, Examples). Bak discloses 0.1 to about 3% by weight of surfactant represented by the above formula is added to the polyurethane foam. Bak discloses the addition of hydroxy-containing tertiary amine such as N-hydroxy ethyl morpholine, or N-hydroxymethyl morpholine in amounts that range between 0.05 to 3.2 parts by 100 parts of the polyol component (8:48-61). Bak discloses a polyurethane foam containing Cu(II) catalyst and two other tertiary amine containing hydroxy components that meet applicants claim limitations. The weight% of surfactant to Cu(II) ranges from 0.1-3.0:0.3-2.8. Further, the content of tertiary amine catalyst to Cu(II) catalyst ranges from 0.05-3.2:0.3-2.8 (See Examples). The molar ratio of tertiary amine to Cu(II) in particular N-hydroxyethyl morpholine (MW = 131.17 w/ 1 nitrogen atom) = 0.10 mols of nitrogen atom to Cu(II) acetate (M.W. 199, 1 Cu atom) or naphthalenic (8 wt% of Cu) = 0.025 mols of Cu.
This ranges teaches an excess of tertiary amine component derived from the surfactant. This range also teaches an excess of tertiary amine component to Cu(II) catalyst. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists over the amount of tertiary amine and Cu(II) catalyst.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to increase the content of surfactant relative to Cu(II) catalyst to obtain a uniform distribution of various components within the reaction system (9:3-6). Also, the addition of the tertiary amine catalyst would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to better control the reaction rate, i.e. increase reaction rate without impairing the physical and chemical properties of the foams (8:45-52).
As to claim 3, Bak discloses mixing polyol component, surfactant, and Cu(II) catalyst to form a uniformly distributed mixture (10:25-40, Examples).
As to claims 4 and 10, Bak teaches the same copper (II) catalyst dissolved in tertiary amines containing hydroxy groups. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant's claimed composition in that the claimed components are present in the claimed amounts, the claimed physical properties relating to the compositions stability to maintain its liquid form are present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
As to claims 17-18, Bak discloses auxiliary components including extenders, crosslinkers, and other isocyanate-reactive additives (6:1-20).
As to claim 19, Bak discloses isocyanate-reactive compounds including polyester polyols or polyether polyols (6:21-40).
As to claims 20-22 and 39, Bak discloses the addition of water a as foaming agent (See Examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-22, 24-25, 34-36, and 39-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights