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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 37 depends from claim 34 which already requires the catalyst mixture. Claim 37 does not limit the catalyst mixture already present in the preceding claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 19-21, 24-27, 29-32, 34, 38-39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0292298 to Puglisi et al.
As to claims 19-21, 38, and 44, Puglisi discloses a reactive polyurethane composition comprising an unblocked polyisocyanate or NCO-terminated prepolymer, a polyol component, a metal acetelyacetonate catalyst, and a diketone component preferably selected from acetylacetone or dibenzoylmethane (0030, Examples).
As to claims 22, 24, and 39, Puglisi discloses metal acetylacetonates including metals such as manganese, cobalt, zirconium, titanium, and zinc wherein the amount of catalyst is 0.001 to 0.5% by weight and molar ratio of catalyst to diketone is 1:6 (0028-0030).
As to claim 25, Puglisi discloses 4,4-diphenylmethane diisocyanate prepolymer (Table 1).
As to claims 26-27, Puglisi discloses the use of polyester polyols, polyether polyols, polymer polyols and other types of higher functional polyols (0017-0020).
As to claim 29, Puglisi discloses an NCO:OH ratio of 1:1 (Table 1).
As to claim 30, Puglisi discloses curable compositions comprising the polyurethane and additives, such as flame retardants, fillers, inhibitors, dyes, etc. in amounts of 0.5 to 40 wt% (0032).
As to claims 31-32, Puglisi discloses spreading a foam prepared from the composition into a layer with a thickness of 0.01 to 100 mm (0047).
As to claim 34, Puglisi discloses a method for producing a polyurethane layer comprising applying the polyurethane composition to substrates or release paper and curing (0045-0048).
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.
Claims 19-22, 24-42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0259465 to Burckhardt et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0292298 to Puglisi et al.
As to claims 19-22, 24-27, 31-32, 38-42, and 44, Burckhardt discloses a polyurethane composition for preparing layers of 2mm to cardboard (0171) comprising an isocyanate
component (modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate), a polyol component(EO-endcapped polyoxypropylene triol), and a catalyst such as zirconium(IV)-tetrakis(1,3-diphenylpropane-1,3- dioate) in amounts of 0.85%, 1.1%, and 0.75% (Zr-2, Table 1 dibenzoylmethane, compositions Z-21, Z-23, and Z-31, Tables 3 and 8) and bismuth catalysts such as bismuth neodecanoate (See Table 2).
Burchkardt does not expressly disclose the addition of a diketone compound.
Puglisi discloses a reactive polyurethane composition comprising an unblocked polyisocyanate or NCO-terminated prepolymer, a polyol component, a metal acetelyacetonate catalyst, and a diketone component preferably selected from acetylacetone or dibenzoylmethane (0030, Examples). Puglisi discloses metal acetylacetonates including metals such as manganese, cobalt, zirconium, titanium, and zinc wherein the amount of catalyst is 0.001 to 0.5% by weight and molar ratio of catalyst to diketone is 1:6 (0028-0030).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the diketone component taught in Puglisi to the composition of Burckhardt to provide heat latency which allows time for the required mixing, casting, and other procedures, and avoids deleterious premature curing during processing (0010).
As to claim 28, Burckhardt discloses a polyol mixture comprising 1300 grams of polyether diol and 2600 grams of polyether triol (0170).
As to claim 29, Burckhardt discloses an NCO:OH ratio of 1.3 to 20 (0048).
As to claim 30, Burckhardt discloses additional components such as leveling aids, foaming aids, or solvents (0118-0131).
As to claims 31-37, Burckhardt discloses a process comprising reacting the polyisocyanate and polyol in the presence of the catalyst with heating to prepare a layer followed by the additional of other types of layers that allows for the polyurethane layer to be separated (0139-0142, leather substitute, 0148).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0259465 to Burckhardt et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0292298 to Puglisi et al. that has been explained above and is applied here as such in view of WO-2008/075344 to Bron et al.
As to claim 43, Burckhardt in view of Puglisi disclose a polyurethane composition for preparing layers of 2mm to cardboard (0171) comprising an isocyanate component (modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate), a polyol component(EO-endcapped polyoxypropylene triol), and a catalyst such as zirconium(IV)-tetrakis(1,3-diphenylpropane-1,3- dioate) in amounts of 0.85%, 1.1%, and 0.75% (Zr-2, Table 1 dibenzoylmethane, compositions Z-21, Z-23, and Z-31, Tables 3 and 8) and bismuth catalysts such as bismuth neodecanoate (See Table 2) and diketone inhibitors.
The references do not teach the preferred diketones.
However, Bron discloses polyurethanes containing diketones such as dibenzolymethane (same as Puglisi) and stearoylbenzoylmethane (Pg. 6, ll. 10).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to substitute one diketone for another because they are taught as functional equivalents and the diketone prevents or diminishes scorch (pg. 5, ll. 15-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19-22 and 24-44 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