Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/262,211

TWO-COMPONENT SYSTEM FOR PREPARING DEODORANT POLYURETHANE FOAMS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 20, 2023
Examiner
WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
558 granted / 1085 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +51% interview lift
Without
With
+50.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
1148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1085 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 1. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 which requires a polyisocyanate. However, claim 6 recites that the polyisocyanate can include monofunctional isocyanates such as n-hexylisocyanate and cyclohexylisocyanate among others. However, monofunctional isocyanates are not polyisocyanates and reciting that the polyisocyanate can include monofuntional isocyanates actually broadens the parent claim rather than only limiting the subject matter of the parent claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 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/ February 3, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600870
NON-OXIDIZED GRAPHENE-BASED ANTI-VIRAL COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603280
SULFUR CATHODES, SULFUR CATHODE MATERIALS, AND APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601047
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SELECTIVE DEPOSITION METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589410
FILM FORMING METHOD AND FILM FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590212
METHOD OF IMPROVING ACTINIC CURE OF ENERGY CURABLE INKS AND COATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.8%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1085 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month