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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-17 are pending and presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of record. In particular, Applicant argues that the amendments clarify that the claimed deodorant functionality is not an intended use, but arises from a specific structural and functional interaction between components.
However, the Examiner notes that the newly added limitation is indefinite (see new rejection below) and does not refer to properties of the claimed two-component system but rather a foam prepared from the system. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the limitations do not overcome the prior art of record as they do not limit the claimed two-component system.
Applicant argues that the incorporation of small amounts of anhydride in component B is what gives rise to the deodorizing property and points to Table 1. However, the Examiner notes that Kreyenschmidt teaches a composition including identical elements as claimed, with an anhydride in component B in an amount inside the range of claim 2. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that given an identical system with the anhydride incorporated in the same amount in component B that this system would also necessarily give rise to the deodorant properties.
Applicant argues that there are unexpected results for the narrower range of claims 14 and 15. However, the Examiner notes that there is no evidence that this range would perform better than at the 1% anhydride of the prior art. Applicant has not provided a comparison against the closest prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot with respect to unexpected results.
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.
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 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 a two-component system with an anhydride present in component B. However, claim 1 also recites that the system comprises residual anhydride groups of the anhydride and the residual anhydride groups are configured to react with amine. However, it is unclear what Applicant means by the system comprising “residual anhydride groups” as the two-component system must include an anhydride which necessarily includes anhydride groups. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-10 and 12-17 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons. Perhaps Applicant intends to claim that a polyurethane foam prepared from the two-component system comprises residual anhydride groups that are capable of reacting to reduce odor. However, this would be a limitation of the polyurethane foam and not a limitation of the two-component system. Therefore, the limitations with respect to the residual anhydride groups and their reactivity has not been given patentable weight with respect to the two-component system. Any two-component system including all the elements as claimed with an anhydride in the amount as claimed will be interpreted as meeting these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreyenschmidt et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6800667).
Initially, it is noted that the recitation in the preamble that the system is for preparing deodorant polyurethane foams is an intended use recitation and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As outlined below, the prior art teaches identical components and would necessarily be capable of performing the intended use and thereby meets the limitation of a system for preparing deodorant polyurethane foams.
I. Regarding claims 1-10, 16 and 17, Kreyenschmidt teaches a two component system (see A component and B component, column 10) for preparing a polyurethane foam (claim 1) comprising: a first component comprising a polyether poly (A component, column 10), water as the exclusive blowing agent (A component, column 10), an amine catalyst (A component, column 10), and other additives (A component, column 10); and a second component comprising polymeric MDI (B component, column 10) and an anhydride in an amount of 1% based on the weight of component (Table 1, column 10), where the anhydride can be dodecenyl succinic anhydride (Table 1, column 10). Kreyenschmidt teaches that the first component and second component are provided to give a system with an index of 100 (column 10, lines 51-53). Kreyenschmidt teaches an identical composition to the two-component system with an anhydride in the amount as claimed. Therefore, Kreyenschmidt’s composition is interpreted as meeting the limitations of the system capable of providing a foam with residual anhydride groups that react with amine to reduce odor. Kreyenschmidt teaches all the limitations of claims 1-10, 16 and 17; therefore, Kreyenschmidt anticipate the claims.
II. Regarding claims 11-13, Kreyenschmidt teaches the two component system as claimed (see above). Additionally, Kreyenschmidt teaches that a polyurethane foam can be prepared by mixing all the elements of the first component, mixing the elements of the second component and then mixing the first component with the second component and reacting to give a polyurethane foam (column 10, lines 9-57). Further, Kreyenschmidt teaches that the foam can be used for preparing deodorant polyurethane foams for furniture applications (claim 1). Kreyenschmidt teaches all the limitations of claims 11-13; therefore, Kreyenschmidt anticipates the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
3. Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreyenschmidt.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kreyenschmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fails to provide an exemplary embodiment using 0.02-0.2 wt% anhydride. However, Kreyenschmidt does teach that the anhydride can be present in an amount of 0.1-6 wt% (column 10, lines 3-7) which overlaps the claimed range. Furthermore, overlapping ranges have been held as prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Kreyenschmidt makes obvious claims 14 and 15.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
July 23, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights