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 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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by "Lupranat
MEB" or "Lupranat MES" or "Lupranat MR/MRS" datasheets. (Provided by applicant).
As to claims 11-13 and 21-23, the datasheets teach a polyisocyanate composition comprising 4,4-
diphenylmethane diisocyanate, a total chlorine content of 100 or 20 ppm, and a hydrolysable chlorine content of 40 or 10 ppm (MR/MRS).
As to claim 14, even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the
process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even thought the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Please note MPEP 2113.
Claims 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent
Pub. No. 2020/0190249 to Yamasaki et al.
As to claims 11-13 and 21-23, Yamasaki discloses a xylylene diisocyanate composition comprising 100 ppm of CDI (chlorine compound produced in the production of XDI) and 60 ppm of hydrolysable chlorine (40 ppm when subtracted, Comp. example 2).
As to claims 14-16, Yamasaki discloses a process for preparing the isocyanate composition using the amine hydrochloride liquid phase phosgenation method (0066).
As to claims 17-20, Yamasaki discloses optical articles prepared from the isocyanate composition and polyol components in the presence of dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst (0506-0511, Table 2).
As to claims 24-26, Yamasaki discloses a gas-phase phosgenation wherein gaseous carbonyl chloride (phosgene) or hydrogen chloride (0025, 0066-0070) is reacted with gaseous polyamine, cooled to mixed with a liquid inert medium and further cooling (0126, 0137-0140, 0149, 0154) at temperatures that range from 30°C to less than 150°C (0074)
As to claim 27, Yamasaki discloses suitable isocyanate-reactive components with molecular weights of 400 to 5,000 and functionality of 2 (0253-0269)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the method for determining the chlorine content is different than that taught in the both references and therefore overcomes the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the claim limitations on how the property is measured does not constitute a teaching over the prior art of record that teaches the claimed properties. Finding a new way to measure properties does not result in a product that is different, in this case the polyisocyanate composition with the low chlorine content. Both references teach the desired/claimed chlorine contents of the polyisocyanate. The methods of which they are measured do not differentiate the products obtained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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