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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 39 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39 should be amended to recite “a hydroxyl number of 20 to 50 mgKOH/g” in Line 7; and
the word “and” should be deleted before the period at the end of Claim 43.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 54 is 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.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” blowing agent composition set forth in Claim 54. Neither independent Claim 29 nor Claim 54 set forth a blowing agent composition prior this recitation. For the purposes of further examination, “the” blowing agent composition will be interpreted as referring to all blowing agents used to prepare the rigid polyurethane foam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29, 31, 32, 35 – 44, 46 – 48, 51, 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2021/0102040 to Adkins et al. (hereinafter Adkins).
The applied reference has a common assignee and common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claims 29, 32, 35, 40, and 52. Adkins teaches a rigid polyurethane foam comprising the reaction product of a reaction mixture [0010]. In Example 1C, the reaction mixture comprises:
a polyisocyanate ([0197] – [0198]; Table 1; and [0200]);
a polyol composition comprising POLYOL 8 (Table 1), which is a polymer polyol having an OH number of 346 mgKOH/g. The polymer polyol comprises the reaction product of a reaction mixture comprising a base polyol having an OH number of 365 to 395 mgKOH/g; butyl acrylate; and hydroxyethyl acrylate [0185]. Butyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl acrylate correspond to ethylenically unsaturated compounds;
Catalysts 1 – 3;
cyclopentane as the only physical blowing agent, corresponding to a physical blowing agent composition comprising 100 weight percent of a hydrocarbon; and
water (Table 1).
Adkins teaches the foam obtained in Example 1C has a closed cell content of 90.0% (Table 2), per ASTM D6226-15 [0113].
Though Adkins does not expressly teach the viscosity of the base polyol of the polymer polyol, the base polyol appears to be substantially identical to the base polyol (POLYOL 2) used in the inventive examples of the instant application having a viscosity of 500 to 700 mPa∙s at 25°C. Both correspond to sucrose and propylene glycol-initiated polyether polyols having a 100% propylene oxide block, an OH number of 365 to 395 mgKOH/g, and an average functionality of 3.0 (see [0185] of Adkins and [0180] of the PG-PUB of the instant application). It would then be reasonably expected that the base polyol of POLYOL 8 in Adkins would also have a viscosity of roughly 500 to 700 mPa∙s at 25°C.
The polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins has a solids content of 25 weight percent [0185], which is outside the instant claimed range of at least 40 weight percent. However, in the general disclosure, Adkins teaches the polymer polyols provided may have a solids content as high as 65 weight percent [0028]. It is consequently the Office’s position that, 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 increase the solids content of polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins to as high as 65 weight percent. The motivation would have been that increasing the solids content of the polymer polyol may provide advantages, such as increasing the hardness and load bearing properties of the final urethane product.
Regarding Claims 31 and 39. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the polymer polyol in Example 1C comprises the reaction product of a reaction mixture comprising a base polyol, butyl acrylate, and hydroxyethyl acrylate [0185]. Butyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl acrylate correspond to ethylenically unsaturated compounds.
Adkins does not expressly teach this reaction mixture further comprises a preformed stabilizer and a free radical initiator. However, in the general disclosure, Adkins teaches the reaction mixtures for forming the polymer polyols may comprise both a preformed stabilizer and a free radical initiator [0028]. The pre-formed stabilizer may specifically comprise the reaction product of a reaction mixture comprising (1) a macromer that contains reactive unsaturation; (2) an ethylenically unsaturated compound; (3) a free radial initiator; (4) a polymer control agent; and (5) an optional diluent [0040]. The macromer comprises the reaction product of a reaction mixture comprising: (i) an H-functional starter having a functionality of 2 to 8 and a hydroxyl number of 20 to 50 mgKOH/g; (ii) 0.1 to 3% by weight, based on 100% by weight of the sum of components (i), (ii), and (iii), of a hydroxyl-reactive compound containing reactive unsaturation; and 0 to 3% by weight, based on 100% by weight of the sum of components (i), (ii), and (iii), of a diisocyanate [0040]. It is consequently the Office’s position that, 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 disclosed preformed stabilizer and free radical initiator in the reaction mixture for preparation of the polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins. The motivation would have been that the use of a preformed stabilizer would provide advantages such as stabilizing the dispersion of polymer particles in the base polyol of the polymer polyol, while the use of a free radical initiator would assist in the efficient reaction of the ethylenically unsaturated compounds to prepare the polymer particles.
Regarding Claims 36 and 37. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the base polyol used to prepare the polymer polyol in Example 1C is derived from exclusively propylene oxide as the alkylene oxide [0180], corresponding to a content of ethylene oxide units in the base polyol of 0 weight percent and a content of propylene oxide units in the base polyol of 100 weight percent.
Regarding Claim 38. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the ethylenically unsaturated compounds used to prepare the polymer polyol in Example 1C are butyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl acrylate, rather than styrene and acrylonitrile. However, in the general disclosure, Adkins teaches an alternative embodiment in which styrene and acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 80:20 are provided as the ethylenically unsaturated compounds [0038] – [0039]. It is consequently the Office’s position that, 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 substitute styrene and acrylonitrile in the weight ratio set forth in the general disclosure for butyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl acrylate in the preparation of the polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins. The motivation would have been that it is obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. (MPEP 2144.06) Adkins teaches all of these compounds are suitably used as ethylenically unsaturated compounds for the preparation of solid particles in the disclosed polymer polyols [0038] – [0039], thus providing evidence of obviousness of substituting one for the other in the disclosed compositions.
Regarding Claim 41. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C consists of 29.94 parts by weight POLYOL 2, 42.02 parts by weight POLYOL 8, and 9.82 parts by weight POLYOL 6 (TABLE 1). Using these values, the polymer polyol (POLYOL 8) can be calculated to be provided in an amount of roughly 51 weight percent relative to the total weight of the polyol composition.
Regarding Claim 42. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C comprises POLYOL 2, which corresponds to an ortho-toluenediamine/aromatic-amine initiated polyether polyol. POLYOL 2 has a functionality of 4 and a hydroxyl number of 380 to 420 mgKOH/g ([0179] and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 43. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 42 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C comprises POLYOL 2, which corresponds to an ortho-toluenediamine/aromatic-amine initiated polyether polyol wherein this aromatic amine initiator constitutes 100 weight percent of the H-functional initiator used to prepare the polyol ([0179] and Table 1).
Adkins is silent with respect to the alkylene oxide which is used to prepare POLYOL 2. However, Adkins does also teach another ortho-toluenediamine/aromatic-amine initiated polyether polyol, POLYOL 3, which is based upon propylene oxide as the alkylene oxide [0180]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to select propylene oxide as the alkylene oxide which is used to prepare POLYOL 2 in Example 1C of Adkins. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Adkins shows that propylene oxide is a suitable alkylene oxide for preparation of the aromatic-amine initiated polyether polyol used in the disclosed foams [0180].
Regarding Claim 44. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 42 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C consists of 29.94 parts by weight POLYOL 2, 42.02 parts by weight POLYOL 8, and 9.82 parts by weight POLYOL 6 (TABLE 1). Using these values, the aromatic-amine initiated polyether polyol (POLYOL 2) can be calculated to be provided in an amount of roughly 36 weight percent relative to the total weight of the polyol composition.
Regarding Claim 46. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 29 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C comprises POLYOL 6, which corresponds to a commercially available aromatic polyester polyol having a functionality of roughly 2 and a hydroxyl number of 230 to 250 mgKOH/g ([0183] and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 47. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 46 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C consists of 29.94 parts by weight POLYOL 2, 42.02 parts by weight POLYOL 8, and 9.82 parts by weight POLYOL 6 (TABLE 1). Using these values, the aromatic polyester polyol (POLYOL 6) can be calculated to be provided in an amount of roughly 12 weight percent relative to the total weight of the polyol composition.
Regarding Claim 47. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 46 wherein the polyol composition in Example 1C consists of 29.94 parts by weight POLYOL 2, 42.02 parts by weight POLYOL 8, and 9.82 parts by weight POLYOL 6 (TABLE 1).
POLYOL 8 comprises a base polyol which is a sucrose/saccharide and propylene glycol-initiated polyether polyol having an OH number of 365 to 395 mgKOH/g and an average functionality of 3.0 [0185].
As detailed in the rejection of independent Claim 29, it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to increase the solids content of POLYOL 8 to up to 65 weight percent. The remaining 35 weight percent of the 42.02 parts by weight of POLYOL 8 would then correspond to the saccharide-initiated base polyether polyol. Using these values and the amounts of POLYOLS 2 and 6 reported in Table 1, the saccharide-initiated base polyether polyol would then correspond to roughly 18 weight percent of the composition.
The Office recognizes that the average functionality of the saccharide-initiated base polyether polyol is 3, which is just outside the claimed functionality range of 4 to 6. However, it is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 51. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 46. Using the values reported in Table 1, the hydrocarbon (cyclopentane) in Example 1C can be calculated to be provided in an amount of roughly 15 weight percent, based on the total weight of the polyol composition.
Regarding Claim 54. Adkins teaches the rigid polyurethane foam of Claim 46 wherein the carbon dioxide generating chemical blowing agent is water. Water and cyclopentane are the only blowing agents used to prepare the foam of Example 1C (Table 1), as such water and this hydrocarbon constitute 100 weight percent of all blowing agents used to prepare the foam. Using the values reported in Table 1, the weight ratio of hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide generating chemical blowing agent provided is roughly 7:1.
Claim 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2021/0102040 to Adkins et al. (hereinafter Adkins).
The applied reference has a common assignee and common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 61. Adkins teaches a process for producing a rigid polyurethane foam comprising reacting a polyisocyanate with a polyol premix [0009] – [0011]. The reaction occurs at an isocyanate index of 90 to 150 [0107]. In Example 1C, the polyol premix comprises:
a polyol composition comprising POLYOL 8 (Table 1), which is a polymer polyol having an OH number of 346 mgKOH/g. The polymer polyol comprises the reaction product of a reaction mixture comprising a base polyol having an OH number of 365 to 395 mgKOH/g; butyl acrylate; and hydroxyethyl acrylate [0185]. Butyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl acrylate correspond to ethylenically unsaturated compounds;
Catalysts 1 – 3;
cyclopentane as the only physical blowing agent, corresponding to a physical blowing agent composition comprising 100 weight percent of a hydrocarbon; and
water (Table 1).
Adkins teaches the foam obtained in Example 1C has a closed cell content of 90.0% (Table 2), per ASTM D6226-15 [0113].
Though Adkins does not expressly teach the viscosity of the base polyol of the polymer polyol, the base polyol appears to be substantially identical to the base polyol (POLYOL 2) used in the inventive examples of the instant application having a viscosity of 500 to 700 mPa∙s at 25°C. Both correspond to sucrose and propylene glycol-initiated polyether polyols having a 100% propylene oxide block, an OH number of 365 to 395 mgKOH/g, and an average functionality of 3.0 (see [0185] of Adkins and [0180] of the PG-PUB of the instant application). It would then be reasonably expected that the base polyol of POLYOL 8 in Adkins would also have a viscosity of roughly 500 to 700 mPa∙s at 25°C.
The polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins has a solids content of 25 weight percent [0185], which is outside the instantly claimed range of at least 40 weight percent. However, in the general disclosure, Adkins teaches the polymer polyols provided may have a solids content as high as 65 weight percent [0028]. It is consequently the Office’s position that, 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 increase the solids content of polymer polyol in Example 1C of Adkins to as high as 65 weight percent. The motivation would have been that increasing the solids content of the polymer polyol may provide advantages, such as increasing the hardness and load bearing properties of the final urethane product.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0417503 also pertains to a closed-celled, rigid polyurethane foam prepared with a polymer polyol comprising a base polyol having a hydroxyl value of at least 200 mgKOH/g.
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