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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kanamori and Meltzer.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 with regard to claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Kanamori does not only teach the use of polyurethanes for leathers, but also for to form medical materials (Paragraph [0189]). There is sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Kanamori and Andrews because they teach polyurethanes for medical applications.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 1/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are withdrawn.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori US 20190330421 A1 in view of Meltzer US 20040198944 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Kanamori teaches a polycarbonate polyol is used as a raw material to form a polyurethane (Abstract). Kanamori also teaches the polyurethane is formed from a reaction between the polycarbonate polyol and an isocyanate and a chain extender (Paragraph [0102]).
Kanamori also lists a series of chain extenders C which can be used in the composition including 1,4 butanediol and 1,5 pentanediol (Paragraph [0109]). Kanamori also teaches that two or more chain extenders can be used in the composition.
Kanamori is silent with respect to suitable amounts of each chain extender when using a mixture of two chain extenders. Meltzer teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane composition comprising two chain extenders (Abstract, Paragraph [0023]). Meltzer teaches that improved properties including better hydrolytic resistance and reduced tendency to anneal, can be obtained when small amounts of different chain length co-chain extenders are used (Paragraph [0023]). Meltzer teaches the ratio of butanediol to co-chain extender is 100 moles of 1,4, butanediol as a primary chain extender to 1-50 moles of co-chain extender. This overlaps with the claimed range of 60:40 to 95:5 butanediol to other chain extender. Hydrolysis resistance and heat resistance are specifically noted as a desirable properties in Kanamori (Paragraph [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the advantage of hydrolytic resistance and reduced tendency to anneal to use the ratio of the main 1,4 butanediol chain extender and the second 1,5 pentanediol as the different length co-chain extender in the amounts referenced by Meltzer for the advantages of hydrolytic resistance and reduced tendency to anneal.
Kanamori teaches that the polycarbonate polyol is that includes the structural components of (A) and (B) (Abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
281
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Kanamori teaches that is the result of the diols used to form components (A) and (B) which are:
PNG
media_image2.png
172
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1 and R2 each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms and, in this range of the number of carbon atoms, optionally have an oxygen atom, a sulfur atom, a nitrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a substituent containing these atoms; and R3 is represents a linear aliphatic hydrocarbon having 3 or 4 carbon atoms (Paragraph [0062]).
Kanamori also teaches that the polycarbonate diol is formed from polycondensation of the above-described compound represented by Formula (C), compound represented by Formula (D) and a carbonate compound (Paragraph [0070]).
A reaction between formula (C), (D), and a carbonate compound will necessarily produce the claimed structure (I).
Kanamori teaches in example 5-1 a polycarbonate formed from a reaction between 729.9 g of 1,4-butanediol (14BD), 161.7g of neopentylglycol (NPG), 2,045.5 g of diphenyl carbonate(DPC) (Paragraph [0308]). This is a ratio of 10:90 branched:linear diols. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0:100 to 95:5 of linear to branched alkylene (Table 2). Kanamori also teaches that the resulting product has no terminal phenoxy groups. The resulting polycarbonate diol necessarily reads on the claimed structure (1) where R that is a linear alkylene is a C4 carbon and neopentyl glycol reads on the claimed alkylene comprising at least one side chain. Neopentyl glycol is a C7 alkylene that comprises two C1 methyl groups as the side chain. This reads on the claimed aliphatic polyol. The reaction of Kanamori as stated in example 5-1
Kanamori is silent on the value of n in the composition. However Kanamori teaches the polycarbonate diol 5-1 has a molecular weight of 2,213 g/mol (Table 2). This corresponds to a value of n of either 16 or 15 depending on the value of R. Both 16 and 15 fall within the claimed range of 4-40.
Regarding claim 2, Kanamori teaches the polyurethane can be formed using hexamethylene diisocyanate (Paragraph [0105]). This reads on the claimed hexamethylene diisocyanate.
Regarding claim 7, Kanamori teaches the polyurethane composition can comprise an additive like an antioxidant (Paragraph [0163]). This reads on the claimed “antioxidant.”
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kanamori also teaches the polyurethane can be used to form watchbands (Paragraph [0192]). This reads on the claimed “wristband” and the claimed “molded product.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori US 20190330421 A1 in view of Meltzer US 20040198944 A1 in further view of Andrews US 20040049002.
Regarding claim 6, Kanamori teaches the polyurethane can be synthesized with a reaction comprising the catalyst (Paragraph [0114]). Kanamori teaches the polyurethane catalyst can be a tin based compound (Paragraph [0114]). However Kanamori is silent on the tin based compound being tin(II)bis(2-ethylhexanoate). Kanamori teaches the resulting products can be medical materials (Paragraph [0189]).
Andrews teaches a polyurethane composition reacting a polyol, a multifunctional isocyanate and chain extenders (Abstract). Andrews teaches the multifunctional isocyanate can be hexamethylene diisocyanate (Paragraph [0006]). Andrews also teaches the polyol can be a polycarbonate diol (Paragraph [0006]). Andrews teaches the polyurethane is used to produce products used in the medical industry (Paragraph [0001]). Andrews teaches a similar polyurethane used in similar applications.
Andrews also teaches the catalyst used to form the polyurethane can be stannous octanoate (Paragraph [0006]). This reads on the claimed tin (II) bis(2-ethylhexanoate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kanamori and Andrews to use the tin catalyst of Andrews because this represents a tin catalyst identified as being suitable for use in applications similar to Andrews and Kanamori. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762