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 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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,556,889 to Naber et al. (Cited on IDS).
As to claims 15-17, even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even thought the prior art product was made by a different process. Please note MPEP 2113.
Naber discloses a process for the preparation of recyclate polyols from a waste polyurethane containing polyol monomeric units to obtain polyols with acid numbers 0.240, <0.01, 0.051, <0.01 (Examples 2-3, 5, and 7).
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-106883395 to Feng et al. in view of CN-101760225 to Chen et al. (Cited on IDS).
As to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 13-17, Feng discloses a method of reducing the acid number to values below 0.8 of a supplied polyol to obtain a stable polyol composition for quality improvement wherein a liquid polyester polyol after preparation is cooled down to 60-90°C, followed by the addition of an alkaline alcohol solution dropwise at a rate of 2-200 ml/min for 1-2 hours, followed by increasing the temperature to about 180°C to evaporate diethylene glycol and water (0023) in the alkaline alcohol solution to obtain the polyester polyol with an acid value of less than 0.8 mg KOH/g (0020-0024).
Feng teaches an alkaline alcohol solution to lower the acid values. Feng does not expressly disclose the of a solubilizing ammonia solution to lower the acid values.
However, within the same field of endeavor, namely reducing acid values, Chen discloses a method for reducing the acid values of biodiesel comprising adding ammonia and polyol with a carbon number 2-10 into products in ester interchange reaction with the oil and free fatty acids followed by obtaining the prepared biodiesel with no higher than 0.8 mg KOH/g acid values (Abstract).
Chen teaches a different type of neutralizer (ammonia in ethylene glycol) that helps in reduction of free acids in biodiesel esterification reactions. Accordingly, at the time of filing it would have been obvious to substitute the neutralizing alkaline alcohol solution of Feng with the neutralizing ammonia in ethylene glycol taught in Chen because they are taught as suitable in analogous processes for reducing acid value. Further, Chen teaches that the method provides high efficiency in reduction of the acid value at low cost and also does not generate a large amount of waste or waste residue, thereby facilitating environmental protection (Abstract).
As to claim 2, Feng in view of Chen teach the addition of 1:1 ratio of ammonia to free acids or an excess of ammonia to free acids of 1-10:1 (0019).
As to claim 4, with regard to the moisture content, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches the claimed process of removing waste by distillation at the same temperature to obtain the lower acid value polyester. Therefore, the content of moisture in the final product would be lower than the waste polyol starting material. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicants’ position; and (2) it would the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
As to claims 8-9, Feng in view of Chen disclose a 20% or 10% aqueous solution of ammonia and 1,2-propane diol or 1,4-butanediol (0026-0027).
As to claim 11, neither Feng or Chen teach wherein the waste polyol is a polyether polyol. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a polyether polyol if the final polyether polyol was required to have a lower acid number.
As to claim 12, Feng teaches the addition of organotitanate catalyst that is added prior to the reduction steps (0017, 0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763