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 Interpretation
Based on the totality of the record including claims and inventive definition provided through the originally filed supporting disclosure, including the specification, “a low-pressure two-component polyurethane foam composition” and/or “two-component polyurethane foam composition” as expressed by the claims {to the degree that the intents of the claims can be ascertained – see rejection(s) under 35USC112 heretofollow} are understood to be defining two-component compositions for forming polyurethane foams as opposed to finally formed foams. Accordingly, it is two-component compositions for forming polyurethane foams that have been examined at this time.
Further, regardless of accompanying language, claims have been treated as if components associated with an “A-side” correlate with one of the two-components of the claims, and components associated with a “B-side” correlate with the other of the two-components of the claims.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "A-side and B-side reactants” in the 1st 2 lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are confusing as to intent because the claims are referring to "A-side and B-side reactant” components that have not been previously set forth or defined by the claims, and it can not be determined how they are intended to be correlated with the other materials and components set forth and defined by the claims.
Claims are further and separately confusing as to intent because it can not be determined how components defined and identified as being "A-side” and/or “B-side” reactants are intended to correlate with later defined “at least one A-side diisocyanate and at least one HFO propellant” and/or “at least one B-side polyol”. It can not be definitively be determined if these differently described components are intended to be referring to the same “A-side” and/or “B-side”, respectively, that are common between the expressions.
Additionally, the expression “at least one A-side diisocyanate and at least one HFO propellant” is confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained if the “at least one HFO propellant” is intended to be a part of the “A-side” component of the claims or if some other arrangement is allowed through the expression “at least one A-side diisocyanate and at least one HFO propellant”.
In light of the above ambiguity, claims have been treated as if components associated with an “A-side” correlate with one of the two-components of the claims, and components associated with a “B-side” correlate with the other of the two-components of the claims {see “Claim Interpretation” above}.
Claims 11 recites the limitation "the two-component polyurethane foam composition of claim 1" in the 1st line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are confusing as to intent because the claims are referring to a "two-component polyurethane foam composition” that have not been previously set forth or defined by claim 1. In addition to not being defined earlier in claim 1, claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined how compositions defined and identified as being "two-component polyurethane foam compositions” are intended to correlate with the earlier defined “low-pressure two-component polyurethane foam compositions” defined by claim 1. It can not be definitively be determined if these differently described compositions are intended to be referring to the same compositions defined by the claims or not.
Claim 5 and 11 {note also dependent claim 6-9 and 12} recites the limitation "the at least one amino polyol” in the 2nd line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims are confusing as to intent because the claims are referring to an "at least one amino polyol” that has not been previously set forth or defined by claim 1. In addition to not being defined earlier in claim 1, claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined how materials defined and identified as being "amino polyols” are intended to correlate with the earlier defined “aminopolyols” defined by claim 1. It can not be definitively be determined if these differently defined claim components are intended to be referring to the same inventive materials or not.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/193178 in view of Singh et al.(2011/0124757).
WO 2019/193178 discloses a low-pressure two-component polyurethane foam composition in which "A-side" and "B-side" reactants comprise: at least one A-side comprising diisocyanate and at least one HFO propellant as claimed, and at least one B-side component comprising a polyol; a gaseous hydrohaloolefin blowing agent; a nitrogen catalyst and a tin catalyst meeting the requirements of applicants’ claims, and at least one surfactant, wherein the compositions possess catalytic decay ratios to the degree defined by applicants’ claims to the degree that the values can be ascertained {see rejection(s) above under 35USC112} (see pages 1, 5, 13, 26 and the Examples).
WO 2019/193178 differs from applicants’ claims in that it does not particularly employ aminopolyols as claimed. However, Singh et al. disclose these aminopolyols meeting and in overlap with the requirements of applicants’ claims to be well known in polyurethane, including two-part polyurethane forming, systems for purposes of forming good urethane products, including those formed from mixtures having good compatibility between ingredients (see abstract, paras [0013]-[0016], Examples and claims). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized any of the aminopolyols provided for my Singh et al. in forming the two component compositions of WO 2019/193178 for the purpose of forming good mixtures for polyurethane foam formation with good compatibility of ingredients in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Additionally, owing to the closeness of the material make-ups, inclusion amounts and the provisioning for nitrogen inclusion through utilization of the aminopolyols provided for by Singh et al., it is held that compositions having nitrogen contents as claimed would necessarily follow from utilization of the aminopolyols of Singh et al. in the preparations of WO 2019/193178.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights