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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleiermacher (WO 2013/127850 A1) in view of Shakour (WO 2019/149672).
Regarding claim 1, Schleiermacher teaches a reaction system for preparing a fiber reinforced composite, wherein the formulation comprises a polyurethane formed from a poly-isocyanate component (which reads on the claimed “isocyanate component A)”) and a blend of at least three polyols (Abstract).
With regard to the aforementioned blend of at least three polyols, Schleiermacher teaches:
A first polyol having a hydroxyl number from 20 to 100 meq/g (p. 5, lines 3-4).
A second polyol having a hydroxyl number from 800 to 1300 meq/g (p. 5, lines 5-6).
A third polyol having a hydroxyl number from 350 to 700 meq/g (p. 5, lines 7-8).
In each case, the hydroxyl numbers of the three polyols taught by Schleiermacher encompass/overlap the claimed ranges of the claimed polyols claimed as “B1)” through “B3),” respectively, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Schleiermacher further teaches that, with regard to the polyol blend, the first polyol is included within the range of 5 to 25 wt%, the second polyol is included within the range of 15 to 45 wt%, and the third polyol is included within the range of 5 to 50 wt% (p. 5, lines 12-16). In each case, the compositional ranges taught by Schleiermacher encompass/overlap the claimed ranges of the claimed polyols claimed as “B1)” through “B3),” respectively, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding the additional limitations on the claimed polyol components, Schleiermacher teaches that the polyols are preferably polyether-polyols (p. 6, line 15), and teaches that the polyether polyols may be preferably formed from propylene oxide and ethylene oxide, in addition to other suitable oxides including butylene oxide, styrene oxide, epichlorohydrin, etc. (p. 6, lines 27-29), and teaches that the polyether polyols are formed from active hydrogen-containing initiator compounds including ethylene glycol and propylene glycol (2-functional), trimethylolpropane (3-functional), and pentaerythritol (4-functional).
The first, second, and third polyols of Schleiermacher therefore read on the claimed polyols “B1),” “B2),” and “B3),” respectively.
Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of catalysts (p. 10, lines 28-30), which read on the claimed “one or more catalysts B4).”
Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of a moisture scavenger, such as molecular sieves (p. 11, lines 32-33), which reads on the claimed “drying agent B5.”
Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of an internal mold release agent (p. 11, line 6), which reads on the claimed “internal release agent C).”
Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of optional additives (p. 11, lines 5-10), which reads on the claimed “further auxiliary and additive substances D).”
As described above, Schleiermacher teaches that the first polyol comprises 5 to 25 wt% of the polyol blend, and the second polyol comprises 15 to 45 wt% of the polyol blend (p. 5, lines 12-16). The combined amounts therefore range from 20 to 70 wt% of the blend. Schleiermacher exemplifies its inventive compositions wherein the compositions contain 4 parts of internal release agent alongside a combined 100 parts of polyols, drying agent, and catalyst (which read on claimed components “B)” and “C),” respectively), alongside about 97 parts of polyols (Table on p. 15, Systems BB, CC, and DD). Schleiermacher therefore teaches that the combined first and second polyol components may comprise between about 19.4 and 67.9 parts within the inventive formulations. Absent optional components “D),” the aforementioned formulations of Schleiermacher comprise 4 parts of release agent per 104 parts of the claimed components “B),” “C),” and “D).” The first and second polyols therefore may comprise between about 18.7 and 65.3 % of the claimed combined components “B),” “C),” and “D),” which overlaps the claimed range of “≤40%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviosuness. The polyol components and molecular sieves together comprise about 99 parts out of the aforementioned 104, comprising about 95.2% of the claimed components “B),” “C),” and “D),” which overlaps the claimed range of “≥90% by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Finally, absent optional components, the polyols, catalyst, and molecular sieves together form 100% of the claimed combined components “B),” “C),” and “D),” which reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the % by weight of components B), C) and optionally D) sum to 100% by weight.”
Regarding the newly-added limitation requiring that the isocyanate component(s) are monophasic, Schleiermacher teaches that the isocyanate-reactive components are non-homogeneous at a temperature of 25°C.
In the same field of endeavor, Shakour teaches a reinforced thermoset polyurethane composite produced by pultrusion (Abstract), and teaches that the polyol(s) which overlap with those of Schleiermacher (e.g., polyether polyols, p. 17, line 14) and polyisocyanate(s) are preferably homogeneously miscible at a temperature ranging from 10 to 70°C, as this improves the homogeneity of the fiber coating during impregnation and offers higher processing speeds (p. 12, line 43 – p. 13, line 3). Furthermore, while Schleiermacher teaches the preference of heterogeneous mixtures of isocyanate-reactive components, Schleiermacher does not teach away from homogeneous mixtures. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a homogeneous mixture of polyols, as taught by Shakour, for the purpose of improving fiber coating during impregnation and improving processing speeds. In so doing, the composition of Schleiermacher as modified by Shakour meets all of the claimed compositional limitations including monophasic behavior of the isocyanate-reactive component(s).
Regarding claim 2, Schleiermacher teaches that the NCO and -OH components are added such that the ratio of OH/NCO is within the range of 1:1 to 1:2. This range converts to a range of 100-200 as claimed, which encompasses the claimed range of “100-150,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as described above, the exemplary formulations of Schleiermacher teach the incorporation of 2 parts of molecular sieves per 104 parts of components reading on the claimed “B),” “C),” and “D),” components, which equates to about 1.9 wt%, which falls within the claimed ranges of “not more than 5% by weight” and “0.05% by weight to 5% by weight,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claims 10-11, Schleiermacher teaches the preferred incorporation of propylene oxide and ethylene oxides within the inventive polyols (p. 6, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 12, as described above, the exemplary formulations of Schleiermacher teach the incorporation of 0.67 parts of catalyst per 104 parts of components reading on the claimed “B),” “C),” and “D),” components, which equates to about 0.6 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of “0.05% by weight to 5% by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, Schleiermacher teaches a fiber reinforced composite including the inventive polyurethane (p. 18, claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Schleiermacher teaches passing the resin through a small closed box attached to the die of a pultrusion line (p. 1, lines 23-25), which reads on step “i.”
Schleiermacher further teaches the pulling of a continuous roving of fiber through the impregnation chamber (p. 20, claim 15), which reads on claimed step “ii.”
Schleiermacher further teaches directing the fiber impregnated fiber reinforced composition through a heated die to form a solid composite (p. 20, claim 15,) which reads on the claimed steps “iii” and “iv.”
Schleiermacher further teaches continuously pulling the composite from the die (p. 20, claim 15), which reads on the claimed step “v.”
Schleiermacher further teaches cutting the resulting composite profile using an abrasive cutoff saw (p. 13, lines 1-3), which reads on the claimed step “vi.”
Regarding claim 15, Schleiermacher teaches the formation of a rigid profile (p. 1, line 22), which reads on the claimed “reinforcing profile.”
Regarding claim 16, Schleiermacher teaches that the polyisocyanates can include MDI (p.9, lines 14-15), and further exemplifies the incorporation of polymeric MDI (p. 14, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 17, Schleiermacher teaches that the polyisocyanate component has an NCO content ranging from 5 to 50 % by weight (p. 10, lines 22-24), which overlaps the claimed range of “more than 25% by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 18, Schleiermacher teaches that the polyisocyanate component preferably has an average functionality ranging from 2.0 to 3.0 (p. 10, lines 18-20), which encompasses the claimed range of “2.1 to 2.9,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, Schleiermacher is silent with regard to the isocyanate component having the claimed viscosity. However, as described above, Schleiermacher teaches polyisocyanate components which meet all of the claimed compositional limitations, and which possess a number of characteristics in common with the claimed polyisocyanate including NCO content, base molecule (monomeric/polymeric MDI), and average functionality (see rejections of claims 16-18, above). Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed viscosity characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in the polyisocyanate component taught by Schleiermacher, as applied above.
Claims 5-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleiermacher (WO 2013/127850 A1) in view of Shakour (WO 2019/149672) and further in view of Huang (CN 104087231 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Schleiermacher as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Schleiermacher teaches the use of molecular sieves as a moisture scavenger within the inventive composition (p. 11, lines 32-33), but differs from claims 5 and 6 because it is silent with regard to the use of the claimed drying agents.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches a polyurethane sealant composition ([0002]), and teaches the use of 3-butyl-2-(1-ethylpentyl)oxazolidine as a dewatering agent ([0013]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate 3-butyl-2-(1-ethylpentyl)oxazolidine as the moisture scavenger within the formulation taught by Schleiermacher, as Huang recognizes 3-butyl-2-(1-ethylpentyl)oxazolidine as a suitable dewatering (i.e., moisture-scavenging) agent for polyurethane formulations.
Regarding claim 20, as described above, Schleiermacher teaches that the alkylene oxides of the inventive polyols are preferably ethylene and propylene oxides (p. 6, lines 27-29). Furthermore, as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate 3-butyl-2-(1-ethylpentyl)oxazolidine as the moisture scavenger within the formulation taught by Schleiermacher, as Huang recognizes 3-butyl-2-(1-ethylpentyl)oxazolidine as a suitable dewatering (i.e., moisture-scavenging) agent for polyurethane formulations.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleiermacher (WO 2013/127850 A1) in view of Shakour (WO 2019/149672) and further in view of Harre (US Patent No. 7,625,954 B2).
Regarding claims 7-9, Schleiermacher as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Schleiermacher differs from claim 7 because it is silent with regard to the first polyol component comprising the claimed mass fraction of propylene oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Harre teaches flexible polyurethane foam compositions (Abstract), comprising polyol components particularly formed from ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (Abstract, col. 4, lines 36-38). Harre teaches the sequential formation of said polyols via a stepwise process, wherein the feed ratio of propylene oxide and ethylene oxide is modified throughout the process (col. 2, lines 17-30). Harre specifies that the ethylene oxide content within the polyols ranges from 5 to 18 % by weight based on the total amount of alkylene oxides (Abstract). The content of propylene oxide therefore ranges from 82-95 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “60% to 90% by weight,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Harre teaches that the formation of polyether polyols in this manner is useful because the alcohol end groups of the final product are mainly primary alcohol groups (as opposed to secondary alcohol groups, col. 1, lines 11-20), which ensure sufficient reactivity of the polyol for polyurethane applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the polyethylene oxide/polypropylene oxide polyether polyols from the process taught by Harre, for the purpose of generating a polyether polyol product with sufficient primary alcohol end groups for sufficient reactivity during the polyurethane formation reaction.
Harre specifies the formation of an intermediate during the polyol formation process, and teaches that this stepwise process has been disclosed previously (col. 1, lines 39-48 and col. 3, lines 7-9). Furthermore, as described above, Harre teaches the stepwise formation of the aforementioned polyols wherein ethylene and propylene oxides are employed in both steps; the process of Harre therefore reads on the claimed process.
Harre further teaches that the aforementioned polyols may be formed using a DMC catalyst (col. 3, lines 59-62), which reads on the claimed list.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schleiermacher and further in view of Shakour.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762