DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites a step (a) that has “an aromatic vinyl monomer” and “a polyol” and recites a step (b) that has “an aromatic vinyl monomer” and “a polyol”. This creates an antecedent basis issue because it is unclear whether the same or different aromatic vinyl monomer and polyols are used in the two steps. It is suggested that the two instances of the terms be differentiated to clarify whether step (b) is adding the same components or different components. Claim 1 and all dependent claims are thus indefinite.
Claims 3-4 recite “the polyol”. Claims 5, 8 recite “the aromatic vinyl monomer”. Claim 7 recites “the polyol” and “the aromatic vinyl monomer”. As these claims depend from claim 1 and claim 1 contains two recitations of “a polyol” and “an aromatic vinyl monomer”, it is unclear whether the dependent claims are referring to the components of step (a), step (b), or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0270836).
Kim teaches a process where 210 g styrene, 90 g acrylonitrile, 3 g initiator, 114 g stabilizer, 405 g polyol, and 450 g ethylbenzene as a diluent are mixed together, then polymerization occurs (¶ 60). This corresponds to claimed step (a). Kim teaches that a mixture of 987 g styrene, 423 g acrylonitrile, 14.1 g initiator, 771 g polyol are then added and polymerization proceeded (¶ 60) this correspond to claimed step (b). Kim teaches the organic diluent was then removed (¶ 60) which corresponds to claimed step (c). Kim teaches the base polyol used is a polyether polyol having a Mw of 3,000 (¶ 55).
Kim teaches 450 g ethylbenzene and 210 g styrene in the first step (¶ 60) which corresponds to a ratio of 100 : 45 of diluent to aromatic monomer and meets claim 8.
Kim teaches 405 g polyol from step (a) : 771 g polyol from step (b) (¶ 60) which corresponds to 100: 190 and meets the range of claim 9.
Kim teaches 210g styrene in step (a) and 987 g styrene and 423 g acrylonitrile in step (b) which gives a ratio of 100 : 671 and meets the range of claim 10.
Kim teaches the reaction occurs in a reaction tank (¶ 60) and is thus a one pot process.
Kim teaches the solids content after that step is 57 wt% and the viscosity is 15,000-20,000 (Table 1) which meet claim 11.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kratz (US 5,814,699).
Kratz teaches a process where polymer polyols are formed by polymerizing a mixture of styrene and acrylonitrile with a polyol in a solvent (abstract). Kratz teaches an example where the reaction takes place in two reactors where the first reactor includes a polyol, styrene, acrylonitrile and a solvent and the second reactor adds polyol, styrene, acrylonitrile and a solvent (Table I). A polymerization occurs in the first reactor, forming an intermediate, followed by an additional polymerization in further reactors (col. 3, ln. 21-51). The reaction in the first reactor corresponds to claimed step (a). The reaction in the second reactor corresponds to claimed step (b). Kratz teaches after the reaction, the solvent was removed (col. 10, ln. 1-5). This corresponds to claimed step (c). Kratz teaches the solvent is ethylbenzene (Table II, col. 9, ln. 30-35). Kratz teaches the polyol used has a hydroxyl number of 56 or 38 mgKOH/g (col. 8, ln. 55-col. 9, ln. 3, Table II). Kratz teaches the polyols have a molecular weight of 2,000 to 8,000 (col. 5, ln. 30-35) which significantly falls within the claimed range.
Kratz teaches examples where, in the first reactor, the ratio of polyol to styrene is 59.26:15.34 (Example 9, Table I) which corresponds to a 100:30 ratio and meets claim 7.
Kratz teaches the ratio of polyol in the first reactor to the polyol in the second reactor is 43 :57 (Table I, example 9) which corresponds to 100 : 132 and meets claim 9. Kratz teaches an example where the amount of monomer used in the first reactor is 22% and the amount in the second reactor is 78% and that the styrene is 15.34% and acrylonitrile is 8.26% of the monomers of the first reactor (Table I, example 9). The amount of monomers in the first reactor that are styrene is 65% and thus the amount of styrene in the first reactor is 14.3%. The ratio of 14.3 : 78 is about 100 : 545 and falls in the range of claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0270836) in view of Kratz (US 5,814,699).
The discussion with respect to Kim above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Kim does not explicitly recite the hydroxyl number of the polyol.
However, Kratz teaches a process where polymer polyols are formed by polymerizing a mixture of styrene and acrylonitrile with a polyol in a solvent (abstract). Kratz teaches the polyol used has a hydroxyl number of 56 or 38 mgKOH/g (col. 8, ln. 55-col. 9, ln. 3, Table II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydroxyl numbers of Kratz because Kim does not teach any hydroxyl numbers and one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to the state of the art (Kratz) to determine suitable hydroxyl numbers.
Alternatively, the prior art contains all the claimed limitations, with the only difference being the lack of actual combination in a single prior art reference. Notably, Kim does not recite the hydroxyl number. One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known methods, and that in combination, each element performs the same function as it does separately. Nobably, the hydroxyl number of Kratz does not change the function of the polyol in Kim as Kim and Kratz use the same chemistry to get polymeric polyols.. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Notably, that the polymerization of styrene and acrylonitrile in the presence of a polyol predictably forms a polymeric polyol as taught by both Kim and Kratz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-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, 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764