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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2019/197638 to Meisenheimer et al. in view of GB-2222161 to Slack.
As to claims 1-4 and 7-9, Meisenheimer discloses a catalyst composition comprising at adduct of a tertiary amine of compound of formula (I) and an isocyanate component, in particular the adduct comprises the reaction of N,N,N-trimethylaminoethylethanolamine or 2-(2-dimethylamionethoxy)ethanol and hexamethylene diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate or 2,4-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (Table 1). Meisenheimer discloses wherein the adducts are suitable for producing polyisocyanurate polymers (Abstract). Meisenheimer fails to teach or fairly suggest that the catalyst composition includes diol component b).
However, within the same field of endeavor Slack teaches production of polyisocyanate which contain isocyanurate groups comprising tertiary amines and low molecular diols such as 1,5-pentanediol, 1,3-propane diol, or 1,3-butanediol (Pg. 4, ll. 13-14).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to include the diol component taught in Slack to the catalyst composition of Meisenheimer to lower the viscosity of composition and to provide improved color (Pg. 5, ll. 10-11) and based on the tenet wherein it is prima facie obvious to add a known component for its known function.
As to claim 5, Meisenheimer in view of Slack teach a catalyst composition comprising a amine (considered to be the adduct of Meisenheimer) and the low molecular weight wherein the amine and hydroxyl components are present is amounts of 0.01:1 to 10:1 (Pg. 4, ll. 25-28).
As to claim 6, with regard to the glass transition temperature, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. viscosity values would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed ingredients. 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 10-14, Meisenheimer discloses a process of forming a polyisocyanurate plastic from the aliphatic isocyanurates comprising providing the adduct and in combination with the diol component of Slack mixing the composition with a polyisocyanate, a fibrous filler with as aspect ratio of greater than 1,000, and an isocyanate reactive component at ratio of NCO:OH of 5:1 (Pg. 22, ll. 10, Pg. 20, ll. 35-37) at temperatures of less than 40°C (Pg. 20, ll. 15-20) and curing at temperature of 80 to 250°C for up to 24 hours (Pg. 21. ll. 15-25).
As to claim 15, with regard to the gel, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the combination of references teaches all of the claimed ingredients and the same processes. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. gel point would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed ingredients. 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.
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