DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 4-5, 8-10, 13-14 are pending. Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 4-5, 8-10, 13-14 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed with respect to the rejection of present claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (US 5,302,749; “Nagata”) in view of JP 2018-177273 to Toshihiko et al. (“Toshihiko”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on Toshihiko in view of newly Nagata as discussed in details in the body of the rejections below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-177273 to Toshihiko et al. (“Toshihiko”) in view of Nagata et al. (US 5,302,749; “Nagata”).
Regarding claim 1, Toshihiko teaches a container suitable for containing dissocyanate resin (para [0016]), of which the container of Toshihiko (Fig. 1, container 2, para [0050]) includes a container body including a metal plate (the metal plate 3, para [0050]); and a resin layer provided on an inner surface of the container body (para [0017] [0050] [0051] [0052], Fig. 1, the resin layer 4 of the inner surface of the container for stabilizing the storage of the dissocyanate resin), and wherein the resin layer contains an epoxy phenol resin (para [0052], Toshihiko teaches the suitable materials for the resin layer include epoxy phenol resin).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Toshihiko teaches a container suitable for containing various dissocyanate resins (para [0016] [0061]), and Toshihiko teaches a container meeting the same structural and material limitations as the instantly claimed container. Toshihiko teaches its container having the inner surface of epoxy phenol resin suppresses poor appearance and coloration during storage (para [0017] [0023] [0024]), and provides the storage stability of the diisocyanate compositions (para [0016]).
But Toshihiko does not specifically teach the inclusion of the specific xylylene diisocyanate composition in which a purity of xylylene diisocyanate is 95% by mass or more, as instantly claimed.
In the same field of dissocyanate resin composition, Nagata teaches a stabilized xylylene diisocyanate composition comprising a xylylene diisocyanate composition in which a purity of xylylene diisocyanate is 99.8% (col. 4, lines, 54-60, col. 5, lines 4-10, Table 1, Examples 1-3), which xylylene diisocyanate composition having purity % overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 95% by mass or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Toshihiko in view the teachings of Nagata, to store the xylylene diisocyanate (XDI) composition taught by Nagata in the container taught by Toshihiko (i.e., including the metal container body having a resin layer on an inner surface thereof containing epoxy phenol resin), because Toshihiko teaches its container having a resin layer of epoxy phenol resin on the inner surface provides the storage stability of the diisocyanate compositions and suppresses poor appearance and coloration during storage (para [0017] [0023] [0024] of Toshihiko), motivated by the desire to provide a container package containing a xylylene diisocyanate composition (in which a purity of xylylene diisocyanate is 99.8%, as taught by Nagata) which container package suppresses discoloration and maintains the appearance of the diisocyanate composition during storage, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success of such modification because Toshihiko does not limit the diisocyanate compositions applicable to its container, rather Toshihiko teaches its container is suitable for containing and storing diisocyanate compositions generally, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory xylylene diisocyanate composition-containing container that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782