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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested that Claim 1 be amended to recite “the polyol composition when discharged” and “the isocyanate composition when discharged”; and
it is suggested Claim 3 be amended to recite “wherein the stationary mixer further comprises an injection port that is divided into two holes”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” low boiling point compound recited in Claims 5 and 6. It is unclear if this phrase refers to the low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C in the polyol composition, the low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C in the isocyanate composition, or both. For the purposes of examination, Claims 5 and 6 will be interpreted as setting forth the low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C in the polyol composition and/or the low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C in the isocyanate composition includes the recited compounds.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,563,459 to Kautz.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 7. Kautz teaches a system comprising a mixing nozzle for blending polyurethane foam ingredients (Column 1, Lines 24 – 26), i.e. a mixing system. The mixing system comprises:
a first bore/container comprising a first ingredient (Column 2, Lines 44 – 45), wherein said first ingredient corresponds to a polyol (Column 3, Lines 67 – 68);
a second bore/container containing a second ingredient (Column 2, Lines 46 – 47), wherein said second ingredient corresponds to an isocyanate (Column 3, Lines 69 – 70); and
a mixing nozzle/stationary mixer which receives and blends/mixes the first ingredient/polyol composition and second ingredient/isocyanate composition when discharged from their respective bores/containers (Column 1, Lines 24 – 26; and Column 2, Lines 44 – 49).
The first ingredient/polyol composition also further comprises a catalyst (Column 4, Lines 54 – 57). In addition, an inert gas, which is preferably air, is introduced into said first and second bores comprising the polyol and isocyanate compositions respectively. Air is set forth as a suitable low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C in instant Claim 6. The polyol and isocyanate compositions of Kautz therefore both comprise a low boiling point compound having a boiling point of less than 0°C.
Kautz teaches its mixing nozzle has a length of 3.5 inches (Column 4, Lines 61 – 62), corresponding to a mixer portion having a length of 88.9 millimeters.
Kautz flows pressurized air through the bores/containers, expressing a preference for pressures from about 15 to about 25 psi (roughly 0.1 to 0.2 MPa). Although the upper limit of the range disclosed by Kautz is just outside the instantly claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0 MP, it is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants' claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05) Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the internal pressure within the first and second containers of Kautz, as the reference teaches higher pressures are associated with excellent mixing of the ingredients (Column 5, Lines 7 – 15).
Regarding Claim 3. Kautz teaches the mixing system of Claim 1 wherein the first and second ingredients flow from their respective bores directly into the mixing chamber (Column 2, Lines 51 – 62; Fig. 1, see especially elements 11, 13, and 14). Each of the two bores must then necessarily comprise a hole such that the materials can flow from bore to mixing chamber, corresponding to an injection port which is divided into two holes.
Regarding Claim 8. Kautz teaches the mixing system of Claim 1 wherein the mixture is delivered from the system by the force of pressurized air (Colum 5, Lines 8 – 20). The system is thus reasonably considered to comprise a discharge gun.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,563,459 to Kautz, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0308362 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter Thomas).
Regarding Claim 2. Kautz teaches the mixing system of Claim 1 but is silent with respect to the type of catalyst which may be provided. However, Younes teaches the concept of using trimerization catalysts in polyurethane foam formulations [0065]. Kautz and Thomas are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely spray polyurethane systems. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a trimerization catalyst as the catalyst in the polyol composition of Kautz. The motivation would have been that trimerization catalysts provide products having isocyanurate moieties; the presence of such moieties increases the strength and rigidity of the polymer product.
Regarding Claim 4. Kautz teaches the mixing system of Claim 1 wherein the polyol composition may comprise additional auxiliary components (Column 4, Lines 54 – 59) but does not expressly teach fillers as a suitable species of auxiliary. However, Thomas teaches the concept of providing fillers as additives in polyurethane foam formulations [0067]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a filler in the polyol composition of Kautz. The motivation would have been that fillers are additives which provide advantages, such as reinforcement and overall reduction in material costs associated with preparation of polyurethanes.
Regarding Claim 5. Kautz teaches the mixing system of Claim 1 wherein the polyol composition may comprise a blowing agent (Column 4, Lines 54 – 59) but is silent regarding suitable species thereof. However, Thomas teaches the concept of using hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) as blowing agents in polyurethane foam formulations. HFO-1234ze is set forth a particular species of HFO [0056] and is described in the instant specification as a suitable species of low boiling point compound. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select HFO-1234ze as the blowing agent in the polyol composition of Kautz. The motivation would have been that HFO-1234ze is a desirable blowing agent for use in polyurethane foam formulations due it low global warming potential (see Thomas [0042]).
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,225,168 teaches the concept of varying the length of a mixing tube of a static mixer based on the material properties of the components and the desired pressure (Column 4, Lines 51 – 55).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764