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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2026 has been entered.
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, 6, 8, 11, 18-22, 25-29, 31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,882,944 to Haveman et al. in view of WO-2019/096611 to Kou et al.
As to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 18-22, 25-28, and 31, it should be noted that the compound of formula (II) is still optional. Haveman discloses a thixotropic composition comprising a compound represented by the following formula and an aprotic solvent wherein the compound comprises the reaction product of toluene diisocyanate and monohydroxyl compounds preferably polyethylene glycol monobutyl ether (hydrophilic) at a molar ratio of 1:1.05 to about 1:6 (5:1-18) to prepare a monoisocyanate reaction product that is reacted with xylylene diamine in the presence of solvent and surfactant (Examples, 11:1-36, Table 1). The monoisocyanate adduct comprises unreacted TDI that is removed by distillation.
Haveman discloses wherein the composition contains small amounts (0.1 to about 1 wt%, 3:36-37), but preferably, no lithium salts from the viewpoint of improving the manufacturing process due to the corrosiveness associated with lithium (2:20-29). Haveman discloses a surfactant amount of 0.1 mols of surfactant calculated on the amine equivalent of diamine used (10:51-55).
The molar ratio of monohydroxy compound to diisocyanate sits outside of the claimed range.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kou teaches that providing total ratio of monohydroxyl compound to toluene diisocyanate in a range of from >1.0:1 to ≤ 1.5:1 leads to the formation of a urea-urethane polymer without necessitating a further distillation step of the diisocyanate and therefore improves economy of such production (see Kou, p. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the ratio of monohydroxyl compound to toluene diisocyanate to within the above range to improve the economy of the process of making a urea-urethane compound (Kou, p. 3).
The combination of references teaches a urea-urethane compound comprising an initial reaction product of a monohydroxy compound and a diisocyanate at a molar excess of hydroxy compounds (as taught in Kou) followed by the reaction with a diamine component. As taught by applicants, the presence of compound of formula (II) are a direct result of the molar ratio of monohydroxy compounds to diisocyanates. Because the ratio is taught within Kou and can be used within the preparation of the urea-urethanes of Haveman, the claimed compounds represented by formula (II) would be present including those within the claimed amounts.
As to claims 12 and 15, Haveman and Kuo teach mixtures of diamines may be used, resulting in different R1 groups (Pg. 16, Kuo).
As to claim 29, Haveman discloses a residual free isocyanate content of 0.1% (See
Examples).
As to claim 40, Haveman discloses a binder (paint, lacquer, or coating composition)comprising the urea urethane composition (10:58-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 18-22, 25-29, 31, and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights