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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to search all claims. This is not found persuasive because unity of the claims is lacking and there is nothing of record to show them as obvious variants..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya (EP-0761779 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6
Komiya discloses a diurethane compound made by reacting a diisocyanate such as hexamethylene diisocyanate (i.e., symmetric aliphatic diisocyanate) with an monovalent hydroxy compound having the R3 as preferably and 8 to 36 carbons which can be straight or branched and aliphatic; and having preferably 10 to 200 alkylene oxide groups, which can be ethylene oxide (page 2, line 44- page 3, line 43).
As the degree of polyethoxylation, the number of ethoxy groups and the number of carbons in the alcohol of the reference overlaps the claimed ranges, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
With respect to the limitation on being made by reacting two molar equivalents of the polyethoxylated compound to one molar equivalent of the diisocyanate compound, it is noted that this is a product-by-process limitation, and applicants have not shown that the claimed diurethane compound would only be formed if a two to one molar ratio of reagents is used. Further, the skill artisan would find it obvious to react two molar equivalents of the monohydric alcohol to one molar equivalent of the diisocyanate to balance and complete the reaction.
It is noted that the compounds taught by Komiya are all from short finite list with predictable results, making the selection of the claimed components obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734