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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previous 112 2nd rejections have been overcome by amendment.
The amendment is supported by original disclosure.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The previous restriction/election of species and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 12, 18-19, and 21 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peckermann et al. (US 20170096526, listed on IDS and ISR) in view of Klescewski et al. (US 20110230581).
As to claims 1, 3-4, 12, 18-19, and 21, Peckermann (abs., claims, examples, 18, 21-24, 57, 68-72, 78, 84-88, examples Table 1) discloses a process of producing polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer for producing polyurethane foam using DMC catalyst, polymeric formaldehyde HO(CH2O)H as H-functional starter, another H-functional polyhydric alcohol starter, and alkylene oxide monomers such as ethylene or propylene oxides.
As to the new limitation of claim 1, Peckermann (claim 1-2, step i and ii) discloses adding polymeric formaldehyde and another H-functional polyhydric alcohol starter with DMC catalyst before the addition of alkylene oxide monomers.
Peckermann is silent on the claimed component X.
In the same area of endeavor of producing polyurethane foam using polyoxyalkylene (ethylene or propylene oxide) polyols, Klescewski (abs., claims, examples, 31-32, 50-56) teaches using H-functional polyols having 3-6 hydroxyl functionality, such as glycerol, sorbitol, trimethylolpropane, and pentaerythritol (meets claims 18 and 21), mixed with other H-functional starters to obtain polyoxyalkylene polyol having functionality more than 2. Trimethylolpropane and glycerol are also crosslinking agents (56).
Therefore, as to claims 1, 3-4, 12, 18-19, and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Peckermann and replaced H-functional polyhydric alcohol starter with glycerol, sorbitol, pentaerythritol, or trimethylolpropane in view of Klescewski, because the resultant process would yield a polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer having hydroxyl functionality more than 2. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select trimethylolpropane or glycerol to improve the crosslinking of the resultant composition comprising the resultant polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer. Particularly to claims 4 and 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to using the mol% of glycerol, sorbitol, pentaerythritol, or trimethylolpropane at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. as a routine laboratory or manufacturing procedure to control the degree to multi-functionality (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, etc) of the resultant hydroxyl terminated polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
The applicant individually attacked Peckermann (6:2-7:2,7:4) for not teaching adding H-functional polyols having 3-6 hydroxyl functionality with pFA before adding alkylene oxide monomers. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP-2145. The primary reference, Peckermann, (claim 1-2, step i and ii) discloses adding polymeric formaldehyde and another H-functional polyhydric alcohol starter (embracing the claimed H-functional polyols having 3-6 hydroxyl functionality) with DMC catalyst before the addition of alkylene oxide monomers. Klescewski’s mere disclosure of adding pFA with H-functional polyols having 3-6 hydroxyl functionality does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives, because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed invention. Thus, Klescewski does not teach away from Peckermann and this application, and Peckermann and Klescewski can be combined to meet the claims.
Applicant's argument (7:3) of unexpected results is unpersuasive and insufficient. Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be compared with the closest art, in this particular case, Peckermann. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed range to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. Therefore, Applicant should compare several compositions containing claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points over the claimed range to several compositions containing the same claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points outside of the claimed range, including data points close to and far from the claimed range.
Therefore, as to claims 1, 3-4, 12, 18-19, and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Peckermann and replaced H-functional polyhydric alcohol starter with glycerol, sorbitol, pentaerythritol, or trimethylolpropane in view of Klescewski, because the resultant process would yield a polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer having hydroxyl functionality more than 2. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select trimethylolpropane or glycerol to improve the crosslinking of the result composition comprising the resultant polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer. Particularly to claims 4 and 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize to using the mol% of glycerol, sorbitol, pentaerythritol, or trimethylolpropane at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. as a routine laboratory or manufacturing procedure to control the degree to multi-functionality (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, etc) of the resultant hydroxyl terminated polyoxymethylene-polyoxyalkylene block copolymer.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights