DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed by Applicant on July 31, 2026 has been fully considered. The amendment to instant claim 1 is acknowledged. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to positively recite the presence of the cell opening compound. In light of the amendment, all previous rejections are withdrawn. The new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
3. Claims 1-16,19 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.
4. The amended claim 1 recites the positive presence of a cell-opening compound. However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “said wt% calculated on a total weight of the reactive mixture”, since there is no previous citation of wt% and of reactive mixture.
Claim 19 refers to “third polyol”, but does not include preposition “the” or “said” in fron of that; therefore, it is not clear if “third polyol” of claim 19 is the same of different from that of claim 1.
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.
5. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260).
6. Macken et al discloses a composition for making flexible polyurethane foam having isocyanate index of 20-70 ([0013], also as to instant claim 3) comprising:
A) a polyisocyanate prepolymer having an NCO-value of 20-30%wt and made by reacting a polyisocyanate comprising 30-80%wt of diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) and 20-70%wt of homologues of this diisocyanate, the homologues having an isocyanate functionality of 3 or more, with a polyol having an average molecular weight of 62-1000, an average nominal hydroxy functionality of 2-4 and oxyethylene groups on an amount of at least 50%wt ([0014], [0025]), as to instant claim 13);
B) a polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene polyol or a mixture of said polyols, the mixture having an average nominal hydroxyl functionality of 2000-8000 and an average oxyethylene content of 25-50%wt;
C) water added in exemplified amounts of 4.7-5.2 pbw ([0058], as to instant claims 1, 15);
D) 0.1-2%wt of mixture of catalysts including triethylene amine, stannous octoate, dibutyltin dilaurate ([0050], as to instant claim 10), specifically 0.6 pbw of Jeffcat DPA, which is cited in instant specification as non-thermolatent gelling catalyst and also Jeffcat ZF-10, which is cited in instant specification as the lowing catalyst (see [0060] of Macken et al and p. 13, lines 1-5 of instant specification);
E) isocyanate-reactive chain extenders having an average molecular weight of 60-1999 ([0013]-[0018], as to instant claim 1) and
D) optionally additives and auxiliaries ([0051], as to instant claim 1).
7. The mixture of polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene polyols (component B)) comprises individual polyols having hydroxy functionality 2-4, molecular weight 2000-8000 and an oxyethylene content of 20-90%wt, provided that the mixture has an average oxyethylene content of 25-50%wt. Specific combination of polyols comprises a mixture of Daltocel F489 polyol and Daltocel F442 in a weight ratio of 4:1; their oxyethylene contents are 27% and 76% respectively, and both having functionality of 3 ([0047]-[0048], as to instant claims 1, 4-5).
8. Though Macken et al does not recite the mixed catalyst component D) further comprising blocked tertiary amine-based catalyst as a thermolatent catalyst, and further the amount of the thermolatent catalyst and the blowing catalyst,
Rister, JR. et al discloses a catalyst system used in the polymerization of polyurethane foams including flexible foams by reaction of polyisocyanate with polyols (Abstract, [0042], [0039]-[0040]), where said catalyst system comprises blocked tertiary amine catalyst used in amount of 0.05-8%wt ([0048], [0002]), where the specifically exemplified catalyst compositions comprise 1%wt of JEFFCAT DPA (corresponding to non-thermolatent gelling catalyst of instant claim 1), 0.2%wt of JEFFCAT ZF-10 (corresponding to the blowing catalyst of instant claim 1) and 0.29%wt of blocked amine catalysts (corresponding to thermolatent catalyst of instant claims 1 and 7) ([0058], also as to instant claim 7-9), wherein the polyurethane foams produced in the presence of said catalysts provide lower emission and lower compression set ([0060]).
9. Since both Rister, JR. et al and Macken et al are related to compositions for producing polyurethane foams by reaction of polyisocyanate with polyols in the presence of amine-based catalysts, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Rister, JR. et al further teaches the use of a catalyst system comprising a combination of JEFFCAT DPA (corresponding to the non-thermolatent gelling catalyst of instant claim 1), JEFFCAT ZF-10 (corresponding to the blowing catalyst of instant claim 1) and blocked tertiary amine catalysts (corresponding to the thermolatent catalyst of instant claims 1 and 7), wherein said catalysts systems provide polyurethane foams having lower emission and lower compression set, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rister, JR. et al and Macken et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the catalyst system of Rister, JR. et al to form the polyurethane foam of Macken et al, so to ensure the polyurethane foam of Macken et al has lower emission and lower compression set as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
10. Macken et al does not teach the composition further comprising cell-opening compound based on a reaction of a phthalic anhydride or succinic anhydride with another polyol, and the use of vegetable-based polyols.
11. However,
1) Tobias et al discloses flexible polyurethane foam produced by reacting an organic polyisocyanate with a polyol in the presence of a catalyst, water as a blowing agent and further a cell opener comprising a reaction product of an organic acid anhydride, such as succinic anhydride, with ethoxylated C9-C15 alcohols (Abstract, col. 3, lines 35-65; col. 4, lines 52-67; col. 5, lines 1-3), wherein the anhydride and the ethoxylated alcohol are reacted in a 1:3 to 3:1 molar ratio, preferably 1:1 molar ratio (col. 5, lines 20-21; 44-65; col 6, lines 1-10), wherein the use of said cell-opener allows to produce flexible molded foams having reduced shrinkage, improved dimensional stability, reduction in force necessary to demold the flexible foam (col. 2, lines 60-67). The cell opener is used in amount of 0.05-3 pbw (col. 7, lines 35-45).
Thus, Tobias et al teaches the use of cell opening compounds to produce flexible molded foams having reduced shrinkage, improved dimensional stability, reduction in force necessary to demold the flexible foam.
2) Casati et al discloses flexible polyurethane foams ([0001]) produced by a reaction of at least one polyisocyanate including MDI with a mixture of polyols including a natural oil-based polyol, such as vegetable polyols having molecular weight of 150-3000 ([0038]-[0039], as to instant claim 12) and at least one additional polyol ([0007]), wherein the additional polyols include i) polyether polyols having 2-3 hydroxy groups per molecule and produced from a copolymerization of propylene oxide and ethylene oxide ([0044]) and ii) further polyester polyol produced by a reaction of a phthalic anhydride or trimellitic anhydride with a polyol such as polymerized ethylene glycol, said polyol having equivalent weight of 150 or less and hydroxy level of 2-3 ([0044]) and wherein Casati et al specifically teaches that the polyols having a high ethylene oxide level such as above about 50% are used as a cell opener in concentrations of below 10 pbw, preferably below 5%wt of the polyol blend ([0044]).
Given the polyol used to form the component ii) is having equivalent weight of 150, and is produced by polymerization of ethylene glycol, therefore, said polyol will intrinsically and necessarily be at least partially polymerized ethylene glycol, i.e. polyether polyol, having hydroxy functionality of 2-3. Based on the teachings of Casati et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare/choose and use the polyol comprising 93%wt of the ethylene oxide units and hydroxy functionality of 3 as the polyol reacted with the phthalic anhydride to form the polyester polyol component ii), since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability (as to instant claim 19). Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Thus, based on the teachings of Casati et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare and use the polyester polyols produced by reacting of phthalic or trimellitic anhydrides with the polyoxyethylene at a ratio of the carboxylic groups to ethylene oxide groups of about 1:1, so to ensure the content of the ethylene oxide is above 50%, such as at least 60% as well, and so that such polyester polyol will be acting as a cell opener in the flexible polyurethane foam as well, given such is desired, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
It is further noted that the limitations of claims 1 and 6 are product-by-process limitations. Case law holds that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the 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 though the prior product was made by a different process” See In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
12. Since Tobias et al, Casati et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al are related to flexible polyurethane molded foams produced by reaction of polyisocyanate and polyols in the presence of catalyst and water as blowing agent, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein i) Tobias et al discloses the use of a cell-opener produced by a reaction of a phthalic anhydride with ethoxylated alcohols in said reaction to produce flexible molded foams having reduced shrinkage, improved dimensional stability, reduction in force necessary to demold the flexible foam, and ii) Casati et al teaches the use of a combination of polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene polyether polyols, vegetable-based polyols and further polyester polyols produced by a reaction of a phthalic anhydride with polyethylene glycol, wherein Casati et al specifically teaches that polyols having a high ethylene oxide level such as above about 50% are used as a cell opener in concentrations of below 10 pbw, preferably below 5%wt of the polyol blend, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tobias et al, Casati et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, and i) to prepare the polyester polyol by a reaction of a phthalic anhydride with the polyethylene glycol such as comprising 94%wt of ethylene oxide units and having hydroxy content of 3, in such weight ratio, so to ensure said polyester polyol is having more than 50% of ethylene oxide units and at least 60% of the anhydride units being converted, as taught by Casati et al and ii) to include, or obvious to try to include, at least partially the thus produced polyester polyol as the polyol in addition to the polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene polyol mixture to form the flexible polyurethane foam of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, so that such produced polyester polyol will be acting, at least partially as a cell opener, especially since the use of the cell openers in the compositions for making flexible polyurethane foams lead to reduced shrinkage, improved dimensional stability, reduction in force necessary to demold the said flexible polyurethane foam, as taught by Tobias et al, as well, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
13. Since the flexible polyurethane foam of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Casati et al and Tobias et al is produced from substantially the same composition as that claimed and discloses in instant invention, including by a moulding process ([0052] of Macken et al), therefore, the produced polyurethane foam of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Casati et al and Tobias et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have a demould time of less than 45 or less than 40 seconds as well (as to instant claims 1, 2). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
14. It is further noted that instant specification does not provide any evidence of criticality in using a cell opening compound as specifically claimed in instant invention (instant claims 1, 6, 19) to produce the flexible polyurethane foam. Thus, the only cell opening compound presented in examples of instant invention is a commercial product Vitrox bis 30050, and said cell opener is used in only two inventive examples 1-2. Inventive examples 3-4 do not include any cell opening compound and have properties very close to those of inventive examples 1-2. Further, it is not clear what the composition of the commercial product Vitrox bis 30050 is.
On the other hand, based on the teachings of Casati et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the polyester polyol produced by a reaction of a phthalic anhydride and polymerized ethylene glycol, including said polymerized ethylene glycol comprising 93%wt of ethylene oxide units, i.e. ethylene oxide-rich as taught by Casati et al as providing cell opening properties, and hydroxy functionality of 3, as the additional polyol/cell opener in the composition of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Casati et al and Tobias et al to form the flexible polyurethane foam as well, since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
15. Claims 1-13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), in further view of Nakamura et al (US 2006/0141236).
16. The discussion with respect to Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), set forth in paragraphs 5-14 above, is incorporated here by reference.
17. Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al do not discloses the composition further comprising an aldehyde scavenger.
18. However, Nakamura et al discloses polyurethane foam molded articles produced from a composition comprising 0.05-3 pbw of a hydrazine aldehyde scavenger, so to reduce the amount of aldehyde emitted from the polyurethane foam molded articles (Abstract, [0020]).
19. Since addition of the hydrazine aldehyde scavenger reduces aldehyde emission from the polyurethane molded foams, as taught by Nakamura et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nakamura et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al and to include, or obvious to try to include the hydrazine aldehyde scavenger of Nakamura et al into the composition/reaction mixture to form the polyurethane foam of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, so to further reduce aldehyde emission level from the molded polyurethane foam of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
20. Claims 1-10, 12-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), in further view of Andries et al (US 2009/0286897).
21. The discussion with respect to Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), set forth in paragraphs 5-14 above, is incorporated here by reference.
22. Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al do not
disclose the composition further comprising vegetable oil-based polyols having molecular weight of 250-5000 for making the polyisocyanate prepolymer.
23. However, Andries et al discloses flexible polyurethane foam produced by reacting a polyisocyanate and polyol, wherein the used polyols comprise 10-40%wt of castor oil (Abstract). It is noted that castor oil has molecular weight of 933 g/mol.
24. Since polyols comprising castor oil are taught in the art as being used for making flexible polyurethane foams, as shown by Andries et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Andries et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use castor oil as at least part of the polyols the component A) and also component B) in the composition of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, as taught by Andries et al, since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
25. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), in further view of Daunch et al (US 6,884,825).
26. The discussion with respect to Macken et al (US 2012/0196946) in view of Rister, JR. et al (US 2010/0099785), Tobias et al (US 6,046,249) and Casati et al (US 2010/0249260), set forth in paragraphs 5-14 above, is incorporated here by reference.
27. Though Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al recite the composition comprising E) isocyanate-reactive chain extenders having an average molecular weight of 60-1999 ([0013]-[0018] of Macken et al), Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al do not explicitly teach said chain extenders being used in amount of 0.15-15%wt and being polyols with hydroxyl functionality of 2-4.
28. However, Daunch et al discloses flexible polyurethane foams produced from a composition comprising a) a combination of MDI and homologues of MDI, b) polyether polyol comprising oxypropylene-oxyethylene copolymer, c) water (Abstract, col. 2, lines 1-35) and further chain extenders/cross-linkers comprising polyols having hydroxyl functionality of 2-8, used in amount of less than 10%wt (col. 7, lines 45-55, col. 8, lines 10-13).
29. Since Daunch et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al are related to flexible polyurethane foams produced from combination of
MDI and its homologues, oxypropylene-oxyethylene copolymer polyols, water, catalyst, chain extenders, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Daunch et al discloses such chain extenders being used in amount of less than 10%wt and comprising polyols with hydroxyl functionality of 2-6, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Daunch et al and Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the chain extenders comprising polyols with hydroxyl functionality of 2-6, in amount of less than 10%wt in the composition of Macken et al in view of Rister, JR. et al, Tobias et al and Casati et al, as taught by Daunch et al, since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant's arguments filed on July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejections and discussion set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights