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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, and cancelled claims 12, 18, and 19 on 04/13/2026.
The 112(b) rejection previously presented is withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Furthermore, claim 1 is amended to incorporate features of claim 18. Additionally, in view of the discussion during the interview, claim 1 is also amended to define the process as "consisting" of the recited steps (to further exclude the multistep process of the art).
Claim 1 is amended to recite "wherein foaming during the process consists of the
mold foaming step comprising the flushing" and distinguishes the multistep foaming of the Kobayashi reference. The Office Action rejection of this claim is respectfully traversed. Page 11 of the Office Action suggests one would modify the other mt by using the pre-expanding and secondary foaming of Kobayashi. But even if this were done (which applicants urge is not proposed by the art), such would not suggest this claim which is drafted to only have a single foaming step by reciting that the foaming consists of the "recited mold foaming step". A multistep foaming as in Kobayashi is not encompassed by the claims as amended.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 requires a process consisting of a mold foaming step, wherein a particle foam formed during the mold foaming is flushed with a fluid, and foaming during the process consists of the mold foaming step with the flushing.
Examiner agrees Claim 1 limits foaming performed in the process to the mold foaming step because of the closed claimed language. However, the claim as presented does not limit the parameters of the mold foaming step. While flushing occurs during the mold foaming step, flushing is not required during the entirety of the mold foaming step and, therefore, the parameters of the mold foaming step may vary during the performance of the step.
The claimed molding foaming step does not preclude a mold foaming step with multiple substeps, such as a preliminary foaming sub-step without flushing and a secondary foaming sub-step with flushing. Therefore, the mold foaming step of Kobayashi would appear to read on the mold foaming step.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 14-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Traßl (WO2019038213, PG-PUB 2020/0207939 relied upon for English translation) in view of Pontiff (US 5,059,376), Kobayashi (Machine Translation of JP2018053037), and Burns (“OSU Heat Release Rate NBS Smoke Density General Overview,” 2012 Collaborative Meeting).
Regarding claim 1, Traßl teaches a process for producing a polyetherimide particle foam, the process consisting of:
mold foaming a polymer mixture to obtain the PEI particle foam [0028], [0036],
wherein the PEl particle foam has a glass transition temperature between 180
and 215°C [0013], measured by means of differential scanning calorimetry [0013], and an average cell diameter of the PEI particle foam is less than 2 mm (Claim 1, [0009]), preferably less than 1 mm [0009], with a density of 20 - 1000 kg/m3 [0026].
Traßl teaches a variety of blowing agents may be used, including alcohols, e.g.
isopropanol or butanol, ketones, such as acetone or methyl ethyl ketone, alkanes, such as isobutane, n-butane, isopentane, n-pentane, hexane, heptane or octane, alkenes, e.g. pentene, hexene, heptene or octene, CO2 , N2, water, ethers, e.g. diethyl ether, aldehydes, e.g. formaldehyde or propanal, hydro(chloro)fluorocarbons, chemical blowing agents or mixtures of two or more thereof [0022].
Traßl teaches chemical blowing agents may be used, including citric acid, citric acid derivatives, azodicarbonamide (ADC) and/or compounds based thereon, toluenesulfonylhydrazine (TSH), oxybis(benzosulfohydroazide) (OBSH) or 5-phenyltetrazole (5-PT) [0023].
Given that the claimed average cell diameter of the PEI particle foam is less than 1 mm and is within the average cell diameter range of the prior art PEI particle foam of less than 2 mm, the claimed average cell diameter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Given that the claimed foam density range of 20 - 200 kg/m3 is within the prior art foam density of 20 - 1000 kg/m3, the claimed foam density range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Given that the claimed glass transition temperature of the PEI particle foam overlaps with the prior art glass transition temperature, the claimed glass transition temperature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Traßl does not teach the density was determined according to DIN EN ISO 1183-1: 2013-04 and the glass transition temperature was determined according to DlN EN lSO 6721-1: 2011-08.
However, Traßl teaches the identical density and glass transition temperature as different by an undisclosed measuring technique and DSC, respectively. Given that the density and glass transition temperature of Traßl are material properties of the PEI foam, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the measured density and glass transition temperature would yield identical measurements when determined according to DIN EN ISO 1183-1: 2013-04 and DlN EN lSO 6721-1: 2011-08, respectively.
Traßl does not teach:
(1) during the mold foaming, a particle foam formed during the mold foaming is flushed with a fluid distinct from a blowing agent to thereby discharge the blowing agent to obtain the PEI particle foam,
wherein the fluid is steam or hot air;
wherein foaming during the process consists of the mold foaming step with the flushing;
(2) thermally treating the PEI particle foam, wherein the thermal treatment is a tempering at a temperature of 50-200°C for 0.1 h to 72 h; and
(3) in a molded part of the PEI particle foam with a thickness of 2-60 mm, the energy release according to AITM 2.0006 is a maximum of 65 kW/ m2 (HRR) and within 2 minutes test duration is 2 - 65 kW min/ m2 (HR), wherein a sample size is 150 mm x 150 mm x installation thickness.
As to (2), Pontiff teaches rapid purging of blowing agents in foamed polymer products (Col 5, Ln 24-68). Pontif teaches in the field of foam molding, it is desirable to purge foam of residual blowing agent to make the foam safe for shipment and use (Col 1, ln 54-56; Col 4, ln 20-30; Col 5, ln 45-Col 5, ln 2). Pontiff teaches a batch method of rapid purging by heating the foamed product for less than 24 hours at a temperature of 120°F or above (49°C or above) or preferably 140°F and above (60°C or above) (Col 8, Lin 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Traßl with a rapid purging of the foam as taught by Pontiff by heating at 60°C or above for less than 24 hours for the benefit of removing residual blowing agent and providing safer foam agents for shipment and use.
Given that the prior art tempering temperature and duration overlap with the claimed temperature range and duration range, the claimed tempering temperature and duration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
As to (1), Kobayashi teaches a process of producing particle foam, such as a PEI foam, the process comprising:
prefoaming a polymer mixture [0076];
mold foaming the polymer mixture, wherein during the mold foaming, a particle foam formed during the mold foaming is flushed with steam (i.e., a fluid distinct from a blowing agent) to perform secondary foaming by steam heating, thereby discharging the blowing agent and obtaining the PEI particle foam [0075]-[0078],
thermally treating the PEI particle foam [0065]-[0066], [0079],
wherein the thermal treatment is a tempering at a temperature of 100°C for 160 hours to remove the foaming agent [0079].
Kobayashi teaches performing a secondary foaming step by steam heating prefoamed particles for the benefit of removing foaming agent [0063]. Kobayashi teaches during a conventional foaming processes, outer surface layer of the foam closest to the molding surface undergoes quicker foaming, developing higher average air permeation resistance at the surface and preventing foaming agent inside the foam from being released, making it difficult to obtain a desirable beam foam [0063]. Kobayashi teaches a secondary foaming step via steam heating allows for sufficiently heating and foaming the center of the pre-expanded particles such that foaming agent to expel a large amount of foaming agent that would otherwise remain in the beam foam [0064]-[0065], thereby allowing more complete foam expansion.
Kobayashi teaches the pre-expanded beads have a blowing agent content of 10.2% by mass [0076] and after the steam heating, the blowing agent content becomes 6.0% by mass [0078].
Kobayashi teaches after the molding step, it is preferable to carry out a thermal treatment step by heating the bead foam again to volatize and remove excess foaming agent and fill gaps and pinholes in the surface that can occur from the secondary foaming [0065]-[0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Traßl with the techniques of pre-expanding foam beads and secondary foaming with steam flushing prior to a thermal treatment as taught by Kobayashi for the benefit of properly and more uniformly expanding the beads throughout the thickness of the article and reducing foaming agent in the foam as taught by Kobayashi, a desirable feature in foams for safe transportation and use of the foam product as taught by Pontiff.
As to (3), Burns discusses FAA regulation requirements require an average maximum HRR of less than or equal to 65 kW/m2 and an average maximum HR of less than or equal to 65 kW min/m2 (Page 41).
Traßl desires a thermally stable foam material of low flammability for use in the aviation industry, especially for aircraft construction, such as components within the aircraft [0009], [0039]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the PEI foam of Traßl meets the HRR and HR requirements of the FAA as disclosed by Burns to meet regulation requirements for aircraft construction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the PEI foam of Traßl would have a maximum HRR of less than or equal to 65 kW /m2 and an average maximum HR of 65 kW min/m2.
While Traßl does not explicitly teach testing the PEI foam in the form of a molded material with a thickness of 2-60 mm or a two minutes test duration with a sample size of 150 mm x 150 mm x installation thickness, given that Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the identical HRR and HR ranges and HRR and HR are properties of the material, the foam material of Traßl would be expected to have the identical properties when tested in the claimed sample sizes and thickness.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the HRR is at most 65 kW/m2 and the HR is less than or equal to 65 kW min/m2 (Burns, Page 41).
Given that claimed HR and HRR ranges are within the HR and HRR ranges of Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns, the claimed HR and HRR ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
While Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns does not explicitly teach testing the PEI foam in the form of a molded material with a thickness of 2-20 mm or a two minutes test duration with a sample size of 150 mm x 150 mm x installation thickness, given that Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the identical HRR and HR ranges to the claimed ranges and HRR and HR are properties of the material, the foam material of Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns would also have the identical properties when tested in the claimed sample sizes and thickness according to AITM 2.0006.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the polymer mixture consists of:
80% to 99.5% by weight of PEI,
0.5% to 10% by weight of a blowing agent, and
0% to 10% by weight of additives (Traßl, [0014]).
Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches nucleating agents are additives (Traßl, [00145], [0020]).
Accordingly, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the mixture can consists of:
80% to 99.5% by weight of PEI,
0.5% to 10% by weight of a blowing agent, and
0% to 10% by weight of a nucleating agent and other additive(s).
While the prior art range of PEI, a blowing agent, and a nucleating agent, and other additives are not identical to the claimed ranges, given that all of the claimed ranges overlap or are within the prior art ranges, the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the polymer mixture comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of flame-retardant additives, plasticizers, pigments, UV stabilizers, nucleating agents, impact strength modifiers, adhesive promoters, and nanoparticles (Traßl , [0015]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent is an alcohol, a ketone, an alkane, an alkene, CO2, N2, an ether, an aldehyde, or mixtures thereof (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises an alcohol selected from isopropanol or butanol (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises a ketone selected from acetone or methyl ethyl ketone (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises an alkane (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises an alkene (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises CO2 or N2 (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 21, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the blowing agent comprises an ether or aldehyde (Traßl , [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 22, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein thermal treatment during the process is a thermal treatment for less than 24 hours at a temperature of 120°F or above (49°C or above) or preferably 140°F and above (60°C or above) (Pontiff, Col 8, Lin 1-20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Traßl (WO2019038213, PG-PUB 2020/0207939 relied upon for English translation) in view of Pontiff (US 5,059,376), Kobayashi (Machine Translation of JP2018053037), and Burns (“OSU Heat Release Rate NBS Smoke Density General Overview,” 2012 Collaborative Meeting), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kuwabara (PG-PUB 2014/0227506).
Regarding claim 11, Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the fluid is steam.
Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns does not teach the fluid is hot air.
Kuwabara teaches by filling a cavity of a mold with the foamed aromatic polyester-based resin particles of the present invention and heating the foamed aromatic polyester-based resin particles to foam them, the secondary foamed particles obtained by foaming the foamed aromatic polyester-based resin particles are heat-fused and integrated with each other through their foaming pressure, whereby an in-mold foam molded product having high heat-fusion bondability and also having a desired shape can be obtained [0113]. Kuwabara teaches no particular limitation is imposed on a heating medium for the foamed aromatic polyester-based resin particles filled into the mold, and examples of the heating medium may include, in addition to water vapor, hot air and warm water [0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Traßl in view of Pontiff, Kobayashi, and Burns with hot air as taught by Kuwabara, a known suitable heating medium for foaming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/H.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights