DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that aii is ethylene oxide tipped.
Examiner does not find this persuasive because Sasaki teaches that aii is ethylene oxide terminated (“A2… polyoxyethylene group at its terminals” [P0192]). A polyoxyethylene group at its terminals is the same as EO-tipped.
Applicant argues the combination is improper.
Examiner does not find this persuasive. Sasaki further discloses that “In order to form better foams, it is preferred to use a foam stabilizer. The foam stabilizer may, for example, be a silicone type foam stabilizer” (P0150), but does not describe the stabilizer in detail. In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, polyurethane foams (abstract), JP744 discloses a similar process for preparing a polyurethane foam and describes the foam stabilizer. The combination would be achievable by using as the generic foam stabilizer Sasaki, the specific foam stabilizer of JP744, which is provided in terms of trade name and would thus be a useful disclosure for a skilled artisan to implement.
Claim Interpretation
The term “is prepared by ring-opening polymerization…” is understood to refer to a positive recitation.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20090239964 A1) and in view of JP744 (JP3770744B2)
In reference to claim 1, Sasaki discloses a process for preparing a polyurethane foam having a resilience of at least 40%, comprising reacting a polyether polyol component (a) and a polyisocyanate in the presence of a blowing agent and a foam stabiliser component (b), wherein:
polyether polyol component (a) comprises (“polyol (A) preferably contains the first polyol (A1) and the following second polyoxyalkylene polyol (A2) (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the second polyol (A2)).” [P0030]):
(a)(i) a polyether polyol which has a molecular weight lower than 4,500 g/mole and is prepared by ring-opening polymerization of an alkylene oxide in the presence of an initiator having a plurality of active hydrogen atoms and a composite metal cyanide complex catalyst, and (“second polyol (A2) is preferably from 700 to 22,000, more preferably from 1,500 to 20,000, particularly preferably from 2,000 to 1,5000.” [P0098]; “such second polyol (A2) are preferably one obtained by ring-opening polymerization” [P0099]; “double metal cyanide complex catalyst” [P0100])
and is ethylene oxide terminated (“A2… polyoxyethylene group at its terminals” [P0192])
(a)(ii) a polyether polyol which has a molecular weight of 4,500 g/mole or higher and which has a primary hydroxyl content of at least 30%; and (“a step of reacting a polyoxyalkylene polyol (A) containing a first polyoxyalkylene polyol (A1) obtained by ring-opening polymerization of an alkylene oxide (c) with an initiator (b) in the presence of a polymerization catalyst” [P0026] and “metal cyanide complex catalyst” [P0059]“the terminal primary hydroxyl groups is preferably from 1 to 60 mol % based on the total number of hydroxyl groups per molecule of the polyol” [P0051]“the mass average molecular weight of the first polyol is preferably from 1,500 to 500,000,” [P0092])
Sasaki further discloses that “In order to form better foams, it is preferred to use a foam stabilizer. The foam stabilizer may, for example, be a silicone type foam stabilizer” (P0150), but does not describe the stabilizer in detail.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, polyurethane foams (abstract), JP744 discloses a similar process for preparing a polyurethane foam (“flexible polyurethane foam and a method for producing the same” [P0001]) having a resilience of at least 40%, comprising reacting a polyether polyol component (a) and a polyisocyanate in the presence of a blowing agent (“polyether polyol and an organic polyisocyanate” [P0004] and “blowing agent” [P0013]) and a foam stabiliser component (b), wherein:
polyether polyol component (a) comprises:
(a)(i) a polyether polyol which has a molecular weight lower than 4,500 g/mole having a plurality of active hydrogen atoms (“Polyether polyol C: Number of hydroxyl groups=3 weight average molecular weight=3300 Ethylene oxide content=60% by weight” [P0022] Or polyol D, E, or F as described in P0022;)
(a)(ii) a polyether polyol which has a molecular weight of 4,500 g/mole or higher (polyol A or B as described in P0022: “Polyether polyol A: Number of hydroxyl groups=3 weight average molecular weight=6000 ethylene oxide content=14% by weight Polyether polyol B: Number of hydroxyl groups=3 weight average molecular weight=7000 Ethylene oxide content= 50% by weight”
The combination of polyols (a)(i) and (a)(ii) is shown in Table 1 or 2)
foam stabiliser component (b) comprises:
(b)(i) a foam stabiliser which is an organosilicone surfactant comprising a polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer, and
(b)(ii) another foam stabiliser which is an organosilicone surfactant comprising a polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer,
(“2.0 parts by weight, foam stabilizer A (manufactured by Toray Dow Corning Silicone, trade name: SF-2971) 0.5 parts by weight, foam stabilizer B (manufactured by Nippon Unicar, trade name: L-) 3601)” [P0023]. These are polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymers; see P0015.)
wherein the weight ratio of foam stabiliser (b)(i) to foam stabiliser (b)(ii) is at most 0.5:1, (0.5 to 2 see P0023)
and wherein at least one of the following requirements (I) and (II) are met:
(I) the relative amount of the polysiloxane part in foam stabiliser (b)(i) is smaller than the relative amount of the polysiloxane part in foam stabiliser (b)(ii), and/or
(II) the molecular weight of the polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer in foam stabiliser (b)(i) is greater than the molecular weight of the polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer in foam stabiliser (b)(ii). (The stabilizers are not identical. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art that they would not have identical molecular weights and identical ratios of polysiloxane).
The combination would be achievable by using as the generic foam stabilizer Sasaki, the specific foam stabilizer of JP744, which is provided in terms of trade name and would thus be a useful disclosure for a skilled artisan to implement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that the foam stabilizer comprised two polysiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer as claimed.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Sasaki further discloses wherein polyether polyol component (a) comprises a polymer polyol which is prepared by polymerizing one or more ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the presence of a base polyol which is polyether polyol (a)(i) (P0114)
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
The stabilizers are not identical. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art that they would not have identical polydispersity indexes.
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Sasaki further discloses wherein polyether polyol (a)(i) comprises polyether chains containing 0 wt. % or at least 3 wt. % and at most 20 wt. % of ethylene oxide content and at least 75 wt. % and at most 97 wt. % or at most 100 wt. % of propylene oxide content (“molar ratio of propylene oxide/ethylene oxide is preferably in a range of from 100/0 to 20/80 (that is, the mass ratio: 100/0 to 25/75).” [P0051]. Sasaki also directs the reader to Masunaga (JP2005320431A) for similar teachings).
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Sasaki further discloses wherein polyether polyol (a)(i) has a primary hydroxyl content which is at least 2% and at most 25% (“primary hydroxyl groups is preferably from 1 to 60 mol % based on the total number of hydroxyl groups per molecule of the polyol” [P0051])
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Sasaki further discloses wherein polyether polyol (a)(i) has a hydroxyl value of at least 25 mg KOH/g and at most 70 mg KOH/g . (“hydroxyl value of from 20 to 160 mgKOH/g.” [P0094]).
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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights