DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/280,690. The response to the restriction/election requirement dated 25 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 18-29 in the reply filed on 25 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the European Examiner of the PCT application did not require unity of invention and the full scope of the invention would not post an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the decision of a European Examiner does not bind a US Examiner’s conclusion. Also, search burden is not relevant criteria for restriction of cases filed under 35 USC 371 where the requirement is focused on unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 30-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 June 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 18- 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 18, section d), please replace “proving” with “providing”.
In Claim 20, please replace “OCH(CH2)3N(CH3)(CH2)3NCO” with “OCN(CH2)3N(CH3)(CH2)3NCO” to match the disclosure in the specification on p. 33, line 34.
In Claim 29, please replace “the at least one solvent is selected from the group consisting of the at least one solvent is selected from the group consisting of” with “the at least one solvent is selected from the group consisting of” to remove the duplicate block of text.
Claims 19-29 are also objected to because they depend upon, and therefore include, Claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 26 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.
Claim 26 recites a range of a ratio of components (C) to (B) of ≥ 1.0: 0.5 and ≤ 0.5:1.0. Because the first ratio (equivalent of 2:1) is larger than the second ratio (equivalent of 1:2), the requirement that the ratio is larger than 2 and less than 0.5 is contradictory and excludes all ratios. It is not clear how skilled users can satisfy the requirements of the claim. Note that if the claim was rewritten to recite a range between the two endpoints, then Claim 26 would be a substantial duplicate of Claim 25 which recites that the ratio is ≥ 1.0: 2.0 and ≤ 2.0:1.0.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, ENGEBRETSON (US-5059672-A), cited in the previous office action, teaches a reaction product of an aromatic isocyanate, an aliphatic isocyanate and an aromatic diamine which satisfies formula (B) as recited by the claim, where the isocyanates may be an isocyanate-functional polyurethane prepolymers, but ENGEBRETSON does not recite the process steps of reacting its polyurethane prepolymer with the aromatic diamine and then reacting the product of that reaction with a polyisocyanate component as is recited by Claim 18. BERGFELD (US-20100093880-A1), teaches a process of recycling polyurethanes and polyurethane ureas by reacting with a secondary amine ([0096]) to reclaim the starting material resulting in products that can be further reacted to form new polyurethanes and polyureas ([0134]), but BERGFELD does not teach a secondary diamine that satisfies formula (B) as is recited by Claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights