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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0273716 to Bressan et al. (hereinafter Bressan).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 7. Bressan teaches a process of preparing a crosslinked polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foam ([0009] – [0010]), i.e. a method of preparing a crosslinked polyvinyl chloride (PVC) structural foam material.
In Example C, the process comprises mixing and melting a PVC resin; an isocyanate; an anhydride; sodium bicarbonate, i.e. a nucleating agent; and zeolite, i.e. a heat stabilizer. A molded material is obtained which subsequently undergoes further processing ([0048] and [0051] – [0052]), i.e. a blank. Bressan does not expressly teach a modified resin is further included in the reactive composition which forms the crosslinked polyvinyl chloride (PVC) structural foam material; however, this component is now set forth as optional in independent Claim 1 and therefore it is not required to be present to meet the instant claim.
The blank is then exposed to water vapor which reacts with the remaining isocyanate and anhydride reagents, thus producing additional quantities of carbon dioxide and completing the crosslinking reaction ([0048] and [0051] – [0052]), corresponding to the instantly claimed steps of immersing the blank into a foaming gas for foaming to obtain a foamed body and subjecting the foamed body to crosslinking and curing to obtain a crosslinked polyvinyl chloride (PVC) structural foam material.
In Example C, the process comprises mixing and melting 40 parts by mass of the PVC resin; 51 parts by mass of the isocyanate; 8 parts by mass of the anhydride; 2 parts by mass of the sodium bicarbonate/nucleating agent; and 0.5 parts by mass of the zeolite/heat stabilizer (see Table in [0048]). Using these values, the mass ratio of the PVC resin, isocyanate, anhydride, nucleating agent and heat stabilizer can be calculated to be roughly 100:128:20:5:1.
Regarding Claim 4. Bressan teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein the anhydride is hexahydrophthalic anhydride (C in Table in [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10. Bressan teaches a preparing a crosslinked polyvinyl chloride (PVC) structural foam material prepared by the method of Claim 1 ([0009] – [0010] and Example C).
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0273716 to Bressan et al. (hereinafter Bressan), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 108219322 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang). For the purposes of examination, citations for Wang are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in January 2026.
Regarding Claim 3. Bressan teaches the process of Claim 1 but is silent with respect to the particular species of isocyanate which may be used. However, Wang teaches toluene diisocyanate (TDI) as a suitable isocyanate for use in the preparation of PVC foams [0011]. Bressan and Wang are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PVC foams. 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 select TDI as the isocyanate in the reactive composition of Example C of Bressan. 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, Wang shows that TDI is known in the art to be a suitable isocyanate for use in the preparation of PVC foams.
Regarding Claim 8. Bressan teaches the process of Claim 1 but does not teach the water vapor is introduced under pressure, such that the foamed body is obtained under the action of pressure. However, Wang teaches the concept of foaming a PVC body with water vapor under a pressure of 10 to 25 MPa [0018]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to immerse the foam blank of Bressan in water vapor at a pressure of at least 10 MPa as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been that providing the water vapor under pressure as taught by Wang would ensure more efficient and thorough impregnation of the foaming agent in the melted PVC composition.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0273716 to Bressan et al. (hereinafter Bressan), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,415,514 to Dorrestijn et al. (hereinafter Dorrestijn).
Regarding Claim 5. Bressan teaches the method of Claim 1 but does not teach one of the claimed species of nucleating agent is used in Example C. However, Dorrestijn teaches the concept of providing calcium carbonate in PVC foam compositions (Column 3, Lines 47 – 52). Bressan and Dorrestijn are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PVC foams. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art include calcium carbonate in the reactive composition of Example C of Bressan as taught by Dorrestijn. The motivation would have been that Dorrestijn teaches calcium carbonate may be used as a filler in PVC foam compositions (Column 3, Lines 47 – 52). Fillers may provide desirable properties in foam compositions, such as lowering material costs and enhancing the strength of the products in which they are included.
Regarding Claim 6. Bressan teaches the method of Claim 1 but does not teach one of the claimed species of nucleating agent is used in Example C. However, Dorrestijn teaches the concept of providing calcium stearate in PVC foam compositions (Column 3, Lines 42 – 47). Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art include calcium stearate in the reactive composition of Example C of Bressan as taught by Dorrestijn. The motivation would have been that Dorrestijn teaches calcium stearate may be used as a lubricant in PVC foam compositions (Column 3, Lines 42 – 47) and therefore would be expected to improve the processability and/or handling of a composition in which it is included.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
35 U.S.C. 112
The Office agrees that the amendment to Claim 5 and cancelation of Claim 9 are sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112. Accordingly, all outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
In response to applicant’s statement that the document Bressan (WO 2018/0273716) could not be found, the Office respectfully submits that the outstanding and present rejections are based on US 2018/0273716 to Bressan et al. (see header of rejection on Page 4 of the Non-Final Office action mailed January 14, 2026). Thus, applicant’s subsequent discussion in the remarks filed March 30, 2026 is correctly based on the document relied upon in the Office action.
Applicant argues that the present application adopts a three-stage process which is not taught as a whole in the relied upon prior art document. With specific respect to Bressan, applicant further argues that the reference does not disclose (1) the claimed step of melting and mixing; and (2) the claimed step of impregnating the blank obtained after melting and mixing in a foaming gas for foaming.
The Office respectfully disagrees. In [0051], Bressan discloses “the polymeric mixture is prepared by first introducing the liquid components (isocyanate and anhydride) into the mixer, followed by the powders of porous stabilizing and nucleating agents, and finally PVC. The mixing is effected…and the mixture thus obtained is poured into moulds which are heated…to a temperature…for the time necessary for melting” [emphasis added], corresponding to a step of melting and mixing.
With respect to (2), it is applicant’s position that the water vapor treatment does not correspond to impregnation in a foaming gas for foaming, noting there is “no step of foaming of the blank by impregnation in an exogenous foaming gas (CO2/N2).” However, instant Claim 1 does not set forth or otherwise require the blank undergo impregnation in an exogenous foaming gas. Instead, Claim 1 simply sets forth immersing the blank into a foaming gas. This limitation is then met by [0052] of Bressan in which the material/blank is subjected to expansion in the presence of both carbon dioxide and water vapor, i.e. water in a gaseous state. Water is a chemical foaming agent which is taught by Bressan to react with the isocyanate and anhydride to provide “additional quantities of CO2” [0052]. The blank in Bressan is thus reasonably considered to be immersed in a foaming gas, namely water vapor and carbon dioxide, to foam the material to obtain a foamed body.
Applicant additionally argues that there is not a division of independent steps of “first foaming, then crosslinking and curing” as set forth in Claim 1. However, the Office respectfully submits that Claim 1 does not require the steps of “immersing the blank into a foaming gas” and “subjecting the foamed body to crosslinking and curing” be entirely distinct steps. As such, the Office respectfully submits that the process disclosed in [0052] of Bressan is reasonably relied upon to meet both step. In this paragraph, the reference teaches “the material is subjected to the expansion and crosslinking process…the water reacts with the remaining isocyanate and anhydride reagents, thus completing the cross-linking reactions and producing additional quantities of CO2”. As detailed above and in applicant’s remarks, water vapor and CO2 function as foaming agents. Thus, as the blank is exposed to CO2 and water vapor and additional CO2- forms, the blank will undergo foaming and thus already correspond to a foamed body (corresponding to the claimed step of “immersing the blank into a foaming gas to obtain a foamed body”). This foamed body will undergo crosslinking and curing, as it continues to undergo further foaming (corresponding to the claimed step of “subjecting the foamed body to crosslinking and curing”).
In response to applicant’s arguments that the applied secondary references do not remedy the deficiencies of Bressan, these arguments are moot as the alleged deficiencies have been addressed above.
Applicant additionally argues that the three stage process achieves unexpected effects. However, it is the Office’s position that the claimed three stage process is anticipated by Bressan. Dorrestijn was previously combined with Bressan in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 to teach the concept of providing a modified resin to prepared a polyvinyl chloride structural foam material. In light of the amendments to Claim 1, it is no longer necessary to modify Bressan in this manner to arrive at the instantly claimed invention because the modified resin is no longer required to be provided. As the claimed three stage process is found to be anticipated by Bressan under 35 U.S.C. 102, beneficial results arising from this process cannot be considered to be unexpected, as they would flow naturally from the teaching of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights