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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 5, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 17-22, 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN 103113525) in view of Chung (KR 101690381) using the English language machine translations for the citations below in view of Cliff et al. (US 2014/0170238).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 17: Guan et al. teaches a method of removing residual mercaptan compound present and causing odor in a polymer product composition (para. 11, 17, 18). Guan et al. teaches providing a polymer product already prepared and containing a mercaptan residual chain transfer agent/thiol molecular weight regulator which causes odor (para. 11), treating with additional radical initiator/peroxide (para. 11) which reacts with the mercaptan compound to form a non-odorous compound (para. 11). Guan et al. also teaches reacting with a catalyst (para. 11) which can be metal platinum, or metal silver (para. 28), which are transition metals.
Guan et al. does not teach the polymer is a polymer grafted polyol. However, Chung teaches a grafted acrylonitrile styrene copolymer (paragraph before para. 1) polymerized on a modified polyol/propylene glycol (para. 36). Guan et al. and Chung are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymerizing styrene and acrylonitrile polymers with a mercaptan molecular weight regulator. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the odor lowering technique of Guan et al. on the polymer of Chung and would have been motivated to do so since Chung also uses a mercaptan molecular weight regulator to make the product.
Guan et al. further does not teach the transition metal comprises metallic copper. However, Cliff et al. teaches a similar polymer composition comprising elemental copper (para. 60, 63). Guan et al. and Cliff et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymer compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the elemental copper of Cliff et al. into the composition of Guan et al. and would have been motivated to do so since it also provides antimicrobial properties.
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 9: Guan et al. teaches tert-butyl hydrogen peroxide (para. 27).
Regarding claim 7: Guan et al. teaches azobisisobutyronitrile (para. 25).
Regarding claims 18-20: Guan et al. teaches the radical initiator step and transition metal step. Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the order of mixing and would have been motivated to do so in order to form an in-situ polymer composition on a substrate.
Regarding claims 21 and 22: Guan et al. teaches the temperature is 75 °C (para. 33).
Regarding claim 24: Guan et al. teaches the mercaptan compound can be butanethiol (para. 22), which is a C4 alkyl mercaptan compound.
Regarding claim 27: Guan et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is the amount of the copper. However, Cliff et al. teaches 0.05 wt. % to about 10 wt.% of the metal in the neutral state based on the total weight of the polymer (para. 76). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of copper in Cliff et al. in the method of Guan et al. and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide sufficient antimicrobial properties.
Regarding claim 28: While the references do not explicitly teach via what mechanism the elemental copper provides the claimed properties, mere recognition of latent properties or additional advantages in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (MPEP 2145 II). The combination of references provide teaching and motivation to combine the elemental copper and the polymer. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN 103113525) in view of Chung (KR 101690381) using the English language machine translations for the citations in view of Cliff et al. (US 2014/0170238) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Cookson et al. (US 2014/0051778).
Regarding claim 5: Guan et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is the viscosity. However, Cookson et al. teaches a similar method where the viscosity is less than 8,000 cps/8,000 mPa·s (para. 78), which overlaps the claimed range. Guan et al. and Cookson et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely styrene acrylonitrile copolymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the viscosity of Cookson et al. in the method of Guan et al. and would have been motivated to do so to control the workability of the product.
Response to Arguments.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to Carty not teaching the claimed metallic copper, which is not applied in the new grounds of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
