DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 18-20 are 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.
Claims 18-20 depend on a cancelled claim and are therefore indefinite. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken that they depend on claim 1.
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, 13, 14, 17-22, 24, and 25 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 24, and 25: 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.
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 claim 13: Guan et al. teaches a method consisting of providing a polymer product composition including a mercaptan (para. 32) (the activated carbon can be considered part of the polymer product composition based on broadest reasonable interpretation) and treating the polymer product composition with the additional radical initiator/peroxide (para. 33).
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).
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 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.
Claim 11 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 as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Carty (US 2012/0014902).
Regarding claim 11: Guan et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is copper. However, Carty teaches that copper or peroxide can both be used to remove maleodours (abstract). Guan et al. and Carty are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely removing odors. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use copper in the method of Guan et al. as in Carty and would have been motivated to do so since Carty teaches that copper is also a highly effective and stable malodour removing compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant’s argument that the examiner should have gleaned limitations into the claims from the disclosure when searching and applying prior art is not persuasive. Claim limitations (the stated claim language) are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Patent protection covers the limitations that are found in the claims and not what a person having ordinary skill in the art may glean from the specification. If additional limitations were read into the claims by each individual person who read a patent, there would not be a clear scope of patent protection that a patent holder would be able to defend.
B) Applicants allege that there are unexpected results. Applicants have the burden of explaining the data they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness (MPEP 716.02 (b)). In this case, there is no explanation of evidence of unexpected results.
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.
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