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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 17-19 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, “the temperature used in the second step (T1) step d)” should read –the temperature (Tsoftening) used in step d)--.
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.
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.
Claims 18-19 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 18 recites wherein the second step comprises placing the polyurethane comprising material in a pressure vessel or pressurized mold (step b)) is performed in an autoclave in an inert atmosphere. Even if the grammatical errors were corrected, it is still not clear what the claim is intending to require as there is placing the polyurethane comprising material in a pressure vessel or pressurized mold in step b). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean wherein in step c), placing the polyurethane comprising material in an autoclave, a pressure vessel, or pressurized mold is performed in an inert atmosphere.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the temperature used in the second step (T1) step d)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted T1 to be Tsoftening.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speas (US2010/0130632) in view of Daschlein et al. (US2016/0297943) hereinafter Daschlein.
Regarding claim 1, Speas teaches:
A 2-step method to form a partly cross-linked polyurethane (PU) comprising foam ([0014, 0063-0069]), said method comprising:
- a first step comprising:
a) providing a reactive mixture comprising an isocyanate composition ([0066]) comprising at least one isocyanate compound ([0066]), an isocyanate-reactive composition comprising at least one isocyanate reactive compound ([0066]), a crosslinking agent ([0063-0066]) and a blowing agent composition ([0038-0041, 0066]) comprising at least a heat activatable blowing agent which is heat activatable to achieve blowing at an activation temperature Tactivate ([0069]), and
b) allowing the reactive mixture to polymerize ([0067-0068]), optionally using a shape or mold ([0067]), at a process temperature Tprocess wherein Tprocess < Tactivate (Speas teaches unactivated blowing agent is present in the polymer [0069]. Tprocess must be less than Tactivate or the mixture would foam during polymerization) and Tprocess < Tmelt (Speas teaches unactivated blowing agent is present in the polymer [0069]. Tprocess must be less than Tactivate or the mixture would foam during polymerization. Speas further teaches the polymer can be heated at least to the activation temperature while not melting [0008, 0067]. Therefore Tprocess must be less than Tmelt) to form a polyurethane comprising material having a melting temperature Tmelt and which is solid at room temperature (T) ([0008, 0067]; the polymer can be heated to 100 to 150°C without melting), and
- a second step comprising:
c) placing the polyurethane comprising material in an oven ([0068-0069]),
d) subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to a temperature sufficient to soften the polymer material (Tsoftenng) wherein Tsoftenng ≥ Tactivate ([0068-0069]), and
e) obtaining the partly cross-linked polyurethane comprising foam ([0068-0069]).
Speas does not explicitly recite a foam having a density below 600 kg/m3.
However, Speas teaches a range of values for the density that overlaps the claimed range ([0074]; 3-30 lb/ft3 = 48.1-481 kg/m3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the foam density as taught by Speas that overlaps with the claimed range.
Speas does not teach c) placing the polyurethane comprising material in an autoclave, pressure vessel or pressurizable mold,
d) subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to a temperature sufficient to soften the polymer material (Tsoftenng) wherein Tsoftenng ≥ Tactivate in combination with an elevated pressure P1 wherein P1 is higher than atmospheric pressure (Patm), and
e) subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to a pressure reduction which is sufficient to achieve expansion (foaming) and to obtain the partly cross-linked polyurethane comprising foam.
In the same field of endeavor regarding foam, Daschlein teaches an expanding method for expanding a polymer impregnated with blowing agent comprising placing the polyurethane comprising material in an autoclave, pressure vessel or pressurizable mold ([0030, 0049]), subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to a temperature (Tb2; [0046-0048]) in combination with an elevated pressure P1 wherein P1 is higher than atmospheric pressure (Patm) ([0048]), and subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to a pressure reduction which is sufficient to achieve expansion (foaming) and to obtain the partly cross-linked polyurethane comprising foam ([0048]) for the motivation of allowing storage in partially expanded form ([0031, 0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second step as taught by Speas with the partial expansion as taught by Daschlein in order to allow storage in partially expanded form.
Regarding claim 2, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas in view of Daschlein does not explicitly recite wherein the partly cross-linked polyurethane comprising foam is a thermally recyclable polyurethane comprising foam. However, since the prior art process teaches the same steps as the claimed method, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect the product produced by the prior art process to have the claimed properties as well.
Regarding claim 4, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the reactive mixture has a nominal average iso-reactive functionality in the range 1.5-4 and/or a nominal average isocyanate functionality in the range 1.5-4 ([0020]; Speas teaches that Isocyanate-functional compounds may have an isocyanate functionality of two or more).
Regarding claim 5, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the crosslinking agent in the reactive mixture is selected from isocyanate reactive compounds having a nominal average iso-reactive functionality higher than 2 ([0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the crosslinking agent in the reactive mixture is selected from compounds which are reactive at temperatures below or equal to the melting temperature Tmelt (Speas teaches that the polymer is crosslinked [0063-0065]. Speas teaches unactivated blowing agent is present in the polymer [0069]. Tprocess must be less than Tactivate or the mixture would foam during polymerization. Speas further teaches the polymer can be heated at least to the activation temperature while not melting [0008, 0067]. Therefore Tprocess must be less than Tmelt).
Regarding claim 7, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the polyurethane comprising material obtained in the first step is submitted to a post-curing step before the second step ([0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the heat activatable blowing agent is selected from a chemical blowing agent having an activation temperature above 80°C ([0068]; azodicarbonamide).
Regarding claim 10, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the heat activatable blowing agent is selected from azodicarbonamides, azobisisobutyronitrile, azodicarbonic methyl ester, diazabicyclooctane, dinitrosopentamethylenetetramine, toluenesulfonyl hydrazide, benzene sulfonyl hydrazide, trihydrazinotriazine and/or diaminodiphenylsulphone and mixtures thereof ([0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Daschlein further teaches wherein the heat activatable blowing agent is selected from a physical blowing agent selected from encapsulated physical blowing agents and expandable microspheres where a gas or gas forming compound is encapsulated in a polymer shell having an activation temperature Tactivate> Tprocess and/or non-encapsulated physical blowing agents selected from chlorofluorocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons and/or non-halogenated hydrocarbons which have an activation temperature Tactivate> Tprocess ([0038]; applicant specification discloses butane as a suitable physical blowing agent).
Regarding claim 12, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the blowing agent composition comprises at least 50 wt% of heat activatable blowing agents which are heat activatable at an activation temperature Tactivate, which is higher than the processing (polymerization) temperature Tprocess (Tprocess< Tactivate) based on the total weight of the blowing agent composition ([0038-0040]; Speas teaches that the blowing agent composition comprises only blowing agents, i.e., 100%).
Regarding claim 13, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas further teaches wherein the reactive mixture comprises less than 0.5 wt% water calculated on the total weight of the reactive mixture (Speas is silent as to any water in the reaction mixture).
Regarding claim 14, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas teaches the first step of producing unexpanded polyurethane ([0068]).
Daschlein further teaches the second step is performed in a mold and the mold corresponds to the final desired shape of the polyurethane comprising foam ([0030]).
Daschlein further teaches that the unexpanded polyurethane is extruded to form beads prior to expansion ([0053]; extrusion inherently requires forcing material through a die/mold).
Daschlein further teaches different steps can be performed in different apparatus ([0049]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches wherein the first step is performed in a first mold and the second step is performed in a second mold and wherein the first mold is different to the second mold and the second mold corresponds to the final desired shape of the polyurethane comprising foam.
Regarding claim 15, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas in view of Daschlein does not explicitly recite wherein the step of subjecting the polyurethane comprising material to an elevated pressure P1 (step d)) wherein P1 is higher than atmospheric pressure (Patm) is performed in a pressure range Patm< P1< 250 bar.
However, Daschlein teaches a range of values for the pressure P1 that overlaps with the claimed range ([0048]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pressure P1 as taught by Speas that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas in view of Daschlein does not explicitly recite wherein the temperature in the second step within the pressure vessel is preferably kept in the range 30-250 °C.
However, Speas teaches a range of values for the temperature in the second step that overlaps with the claimed range ([0069]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the temperature in the second step as taught by Speas that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Daschlein further teaches wherein in step c), placing the polyurethane comprising material in an autoclave, a pressure vessel, or pressurized mold is performed in an inert atmosphere ([0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Daschlein further teaches Tmelt to be below 300°C ([0054]).
Speas further teaches wherein the temperature (Tsoftening) used in step d) is between 160-180 °C ([0069]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches wherein the temperature (Tsoftening) used in step d) is below the melting temperature Tmelt of the polyurethane comprising material (Tsoftening < Tmelt).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speas in view of Daschlein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Limerkens et al. (US7202284 of record) hereinafter Limerkens.
Regarding claim 3, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas in view of Daschlein does not teach wherein the reactive mixture has an overall nominal average functionality in the range 2 - 2.3.
Speas in view of Daschlein is silent as to the overall nominal average functionality of the reactive mixture. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other reactive mixtures in the art.
In the same field of endeavor regarding foam, Limerkens teaches a polyurethane prepolymer mixture having an overall nominal average functionality in the range 2 - 2.3 (col 3, ln 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the overall nominal average functionality as taught by Limerkens and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches polyurethane prepolymer mixtures for foamed products.
Regarding claim 8, Speas in view of Daschlein teaches the method of claim 1.
Speas in view of Daschlein does not teach wherein the isocyanate index of the reactive mixture is between 80 and 120.
Speas in view of Daschlein is silent as to the isocyanate index of the reactive mixture. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other reactive mixtures in the art.
In the same field of endeavor regarding foam, Limerkens teaches a polyurethane prepolymer mixture having a range of values for the isocyanate index of the reactive mixture that overlaps with the claimed range (col 2, ln 41-46).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the isocyanate index of the reactive mixture as taught by Limerkens that overlaps with the claimed range and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches polyurethane prepolymer mixtures for foamed products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights