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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8 of the specification sets forth two particularly preferred compounds (d) in Lines 6 – 14. However, neither compound corresponds to the formula W-Kw-NH-C(O)-CH2-Q required for compound (d) on Page 7, Line 25 – Page 8, Line 5 in which W is required to be present and correspond to a cyclic amine. Neither of the compounds depicted on Page 8 comprise the cyclic amine moiety W.
Additionally, Page 13 sets forth four different compounds (d) in Lines 1 – 13. However, only compound A1 corresponds to a species of compound (d) which is characterized as having the formula W-Kw-NH-C(O)-CH2-Q. The remaining compounds V1, V2, and A2 do not correspond to species of this general formula.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to recite “and aromatic hydrocarbons” in the final line;
Claim 5 should be amended to recite -Kw-;
it is suggested Claim 12 be amended to recite the polyurethane is in the form of a mattress; and
Claim 15 should be amended to recite “interior of a means”.
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 – 15 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 because:
As Claim 1 is written, it is unclear if only (e) blowing agents are optional or if all ingredients (e) – (g) recited after the phrase “optionally” are considered optional. As remaining pending claims (Claims 2 – 15) ultimately depend on Claim 1, they also inherit this deficiency. For the purposes of examination, each of ingredients (e), (f), and (g) recited in Claim 1 will be considered optional.
Claim 3 sets forth -Kw- represents a linear, unsubstituted hydrocarbon radical. It is unclear if this limitation intends to imply -Kw- as set forth in Claim 1 may be optionally substituted. For the purposes of examination, Claim 1 will be interpreted as setting forth -Kw- represents an unsubstituted linear or branched-chain hydrocarbon radical.
Claim 4 sets forth “-Kw- and -W- are as defined in claim 1”. It is unclear if this limitation requires that -Kw- and -W- correspond to the same moieties for -Kw- and -W- as in the general formula (d) or are simply also selected from the same general categories. For the purposes of further examination, Claim 4 will be interpreted as setting forth W- in Q represents a cyclic amine which may be substituted and which is bonded to -Kw- in Q via a nitrogen atom and -Kw in Q represents a linear or branched-chain unsubstituted hydrocarbon radical.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “W” and “-Kw” in Claim 5. It is unclear to which of the previously recited moieties W and -Kw- refer. Additionally, it is unclear how W and Kw may be identical, as W is set forth as a pyrrolidine ring and -Kw- is a linear, unsubstituted hydrocarbon radical. For the purposes of further examination, Claim 5 will be interpreted as setting forth W in the general formula and in Q both correspond to a pyrrolidine ring and Kw in general formula and in Q both correspond to the same linear, unsubstituted radical having 1 to 10 carbon atoms.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the polyurethanes according to claim 13” in Claim 14. Claim 13 only sets forth a polyurethane (singular). Consequently, for the purposes of examination, Claim 14 will be interpreted as setting forth the polyurethane of Claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15 are indefinite, as the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process of using the polyurethanes. It is consequently unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1 099 718 to Meier.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2. Meier teaches a process for producing polyurethanes comprising preparing a reaction mixture/formulation, i.e. mixing:
a polyisocyanate;
a polyol and polymer polyol, i.e. polymeric compounds having isocyanate-reactive groups;
a catalyst composition;
a cell opener;
a blowing agent and an auxiliary blowing agent;
a crosslinker [0040], [0044] – [0047];
optionally a chain extender [0042]; and
optionally other additives [0046].
The cell opener may correspond to a compound of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the cell opener may correspond to a compound of the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
99
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0011] and [0016] – [0018].
Either of the above cell openers compounds corresponds to a compound of the instantly claimed general formula W-Kw-NH-C(O)-CH2-Q. Specifically, the first compound depicted above corresponds to a compound of the instantly claimed general formula in which W represents a pyrrolidine ring, i.e. a cyclic amine which is unsubstituted, and bonded to -Kw- via the nitrogen atom in the ring; -Kw- is (CH2-)n and therefore represents a linear hydrocarbon radical; N represents a nitrogen atom; C represents a carbon atom; O represents an oxygen atom; H represents a hydrogen atom; and Q represents cyanide (CN). The second compound depicted above corresponds to a compound of the instantly claimed formula in which W represents a pyrrolidine ring, i.e. a cyclic amine, which is unsubstituted and bonded to -Kw- via the nitrogen atom in the ring; -Kw- is (CH2-)n and therefore represents a linear hydrocarbon radical; N represents a nitrogen atom; C represents a carbon atom; O represents an oxygen atom; H represents a hydrogen atom; and Q an electronegative radical of the formula -C(O)-R2 in which R2 represents -R7-- and -R7-- is a substituted araliphatic radical of the formula –(CO)-CH2-(CO)-NH-(CH2)n-W and W in this radical is also a pyrrolidine ring.
Regarding Claim 3. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1. In each of the structures depicted in the rejection of Claim 1, -Kw- is (CH2-)n and n is 1 or 2 [0017] – [0018]. -Kw- in each of these structures therefore represents a linear, unsubstituted hydrocarbon radical having 1 or 2 carbon atoms.
Regarding Claim 6. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1 wherein the polymer compound having isocyanate-reactive groups may comprise polyalkylene ether polyols [0036].
Regarding Claims 7 – 9. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1, wherein the catalyst may be diethanolamine [0041]. Diethanolamine corresponds to a compound of the formula (CH3)2NCH2CH2OH. It therefore comprises one isocyanate-reactive group (OH), one tertiary amine group ((CH3)2NCH2), two organic radicals (the two CH3 groups), and one additional organic radical (CH--2CH2).
Regarding Claim 10. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1 wherein the polyurethane may be a polyurethane foam having a density of 12 – 100 kg/m3 [0043].
Regarding Claim 12. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1 wherein the polyurethane may be part of an item of furniture [0012].
Regarding Claim 13. Meier teaches a polyurethane producible by the process of Claim 1 [0011], [0016] – [0018], [0040], [0042], and [0044] – [0047].
Regarding Claims 14 and 15. Meier teaches a method in which the polyurethane of Claim 13 is formed as automotive seating [0012], i.e. an article which is an enclosed space which is the interior of a means of transport.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1 099 718 to Meier, as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1 wherein the cell opener may correspond to a compound of the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
99
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0018]. This compound corresponds to a compound of the instantly claimed formula in which Q is an electronegative radical of the formula -C(O)-R2 in which R2 represents -R7-- and -R7-- is a substituted araliphatic radical of the formula –(CO)-CH2-(CO)-NH-(CH2)n-W and W in this radical is a pyrrolidine ring.
This compound in Meier differs from the instantly claimed compound in that the Q moiety in Meier contains an additional -(CO)-CH2- group. The compound in Meir thus differs regularly by the successive addition of a -(CO)-CH2- group, with the compound in Meir having three such groups and the instantly claimed compound having only two. However, compounds which are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). Notably, Meir itself discloses a number of other species of cell openers having only two -(CO)-CH2- groups (see, e.g. [0020] – [0021]) and thus the absence of this additional group would still be reasonably expected to provide a compound having similar properties, i.e. a compound which functions as a cell opener.
Regarding Claim 5. Meier teaches the process of Claim 4 wherein the cell opener may correspond to a compound of the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
99
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which n is 1 or 2 [0018]. This compound corresponds to a compound of the instantly claimed formula in which W in the general formula and in Q both correspond to a pyrrolidine ring and Kw in general formula and in Q both correspond to the same linear, unsubstituted radical having 1 to 2 carbon atoms.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1 099 718 to Meier, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0334256 to Sesoko et al. (hereinafter Sesoko).
Regarding Claim 11. Meier teaches the process of Claim 1 but does not expressly teach it may have an average density of more than 850 g/L. However, Sesoko teaches the concept of preparing a polyurethane with a density as high as 1000 kg/m3 [0060]. Polyurethanes having densities of more than 850 g/L correspond to compact polyurethanes as set forth in instant Claim 11. Meier and Sesoko are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely flexible polyurethane foams. 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 the polyurethane of Meier with a density as high as 1000 kg/m3 as taught by Sesoko. The motivation would have been a higher density article may provide advantages such as improved load bearing and durability.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references also pertain to polyurethanes in which additives comprising cyclic amine groups and/or which function to reduce aldehyde emissions are provided.
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