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 .
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "The polyurethane foam-forming ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “polyurethane foam-forming composition is not recited in claim 1. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “The polyurethane foam-forming composition of claim 16”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20220251374 A1) in view of Adkins et al (US 20210102040 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12-14: Bell teaches an isocyanate-reactive composition (abstract) comprising a polyol blend (abstract) comprising a saccharide-initiated/ hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of 4 to 6 and an OH number of 300 to 600 mg KOH/g (para 30) present in an amount of 20 to 60% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 31), which overlaps the claimed range, and an aliphatic triol-initiated/hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of 2 to 4 and an OH number of 200 to 600 mg KOH/g (para 32) present in an amount of 30 to 90% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 34). Bell further teaches a blowing agent composition comprising a physical blowing agent and a carbon dioxide generating chemical blowing agent (para 39). The physical blowing agent comprises at least 90% by weight a hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HCFO) (para 42) and the HCFO comprises 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (para 40) present in an amount of 10 to 25% by weight of the polyol blend (para 41). The chemical blowing agent comprises water present in 1.0 to 3.0% weight of the polyol blend (para 44) and the HCFO and water are present in a weight ratio of at least 4:1 (para 45). However, Bell is silent on the polyol blend comprising an aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol and a content of -C2H4O- units of 2 to 6% by weight based on the total weight of the polyol blend.
Adkins teaches a polyol blend comprising an aromatic amine initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of at least 2.5 and an OH number of 300 to 500 (para 70) present in an amount of 1 to 30% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 82) Adkins and Bell are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely isocyanate reactive compositions and polyurethane foams. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins. The use of aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyols in isocyanate reactive compositions well known in the art and would achieve predictable results. Aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyols impart favorable property onto polyurethane foams such as increased flow and thermal insulation. One would have been motivated to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins to obtain better properties for polyurethane foams.
Adkins further teaches a base polyol/polyol blend comprised of less than 8% by weight ethylene oxide/C2H4O units (para 37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the ethylene oxide/C2H4O units of Adkins. Adkins discloses that when mixtures are used, the ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be added simultaneously or sequentially to provide internal blocks, terminal blocks or random distribution of the oxyethylene groups and/or oxypropylene groups in the polyether polyol (para 31). Bell discloses that suitable alkylene oxides for reacting with H-functional initiators comprise ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or mixtures of the two (para 25). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a low amount of ethylene oxide units as it would allow the polyols to have properties of ethylene oxide, such as hydrophilicity, while allowing for the value of these properties to be controlled. They would be able to tailor the produced polyurethane foams to have desired properties.
Regarding Claim 3: Modified Bell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as seen above. Bell further teaches an aliphatic triol/first hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol wherein the alkylene oxide consists of propylene oxide (para 33) reading on the limitation of propylene oxide being present in an amount of at least 90% by weight based on the total weight of the alkylene oxide. However, Bell does not disclose an amount of propylene oxide in the alkylene oxide of the saccharide/second hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol.
Adkins teaches a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol with an amount of propylene oxide of 60 to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the alkylene oxide (para 84). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the saccharide- initiated polyether polyol of Bell with the saccharide- initiated polyether polyol of Adkins. Adkins teaches a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol that has a functionality of 4 to 6 and an OH number of 300 to 600 mg KOH/g (para 85) which is the same as the saccharide-initiated polyether polyol of Bell. Bell discloses that it is suitable to uses a mixture of alkylene oxides in a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol (para 28). Limiting the amount of propylene oxide allows for the use of other alkylene oxides in the polyols. The different alkylene oxides have different properties, such as hydrophilicity, which would affect the properties of the produced polyurethane foam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the substitution to tailor the properties of the polyurethane foam product.
Regarding Claims 7-9 and 11: Modified Bell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as seen above. Bell further teaches an alkanolamine-initiated polyether polyol (para 22) with a functionality of 2.5 to 4 and an OH number of at least 500 mg KOH/g (para 26) present in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 27). Bell teaches a monoethanolamine-initiated polyether polyol prepared by propoxylating monoethanolamine (para 152). This reads on the limitation of claim 7 of the alkanolamine-initiated polyether polyol comprising of alkanolamine being present in an amount of more than 50% by weight based on the total weight of H-functional initiator used to produce the alkanolamine-initiated polyether polyol as monoethanolamine is the sole H-functional initiator of the polyether polyol.
Modified Bell teaches weight% values of the saccharide-initiated (20-40%) , aliphatic triol-initiated (30-90%), aromatic amine-initiated (1-30%), and alkanolamine- initiated (1-10%) polyether polyols, as seen above, that have a summation of greater than 90% by weight of the total polyol blend.
Regarding Claim 15: Modified Bell teaches the limitations of claim 1 as seen above. Bell further teaches the isocyanate-reactive composition comprising of a tertiary amine (para 48) comprising of a morpholine present in an amount of 80 to 90% by weight based on the total weight of the tertiary amine catalyst composition (para 51). Modified Bell further teaches a tertiary amine comprising an imidazole, 1,2-dimethylimidazole, (para 164) present in an amount of 18% by weight (1pbw/5.5pbw) based on the total weight of the tertiary amine catalyst composition (Table 2, Ex. 12).
Regarding Claim 16: Bell teaches a polyurethane foam-forming composition (para 55) comprising a polyol blend (abstract) comprising a saccharide-initiated/ hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of 4 to 6 and an OH number of 300 to 600 mg KOH/g (para 30) present in an amount of 20 to 60% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 31), which overlaps the claimed range, and an aliphatic triol-initiated/hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of 2 to 4 and an OH number of 200 to 600 mg KOH/g (para 32) present in an amount of 30 to 90% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 34). Bell further teaches a blowing agent composition comprising a physical blowing agent and a carbon dioxide generating chemical blowing agent (para 39). The physical blowing agent comprises at least 90% by weight a hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HCFO) (para 42) and the HCFO comprises 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (para 40) present in an amount of 10 to 25% by weight of the polyol blend (para 41). The chemical blowing agent comprises water present in 1.0 to 3.0% weight of the polyol blend (para 44) and the HCFO and water are present in a weight ratio of at least 4:1 (para 45). Bell further teaches a polyisocyanate present in an isocyanate index of 0.9 to 1.5 (para 60). However, Bell is silent on the polyol blend comprising an aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol and a content of -C2H4O- units of 2 to 8% by weight based on the total weight of the polyol blend.
Adkins teaches a polyol blend comprising an aromatic amine initiated polyether polyol with a functionality of at least 2.5 and an OH number of 300 to 500 (para 70) present in an amount of 1 to 30% by weight based on the weight of the polyol blend (para 82) Adkins and Bell are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely isocyanate reactive compositions and polyurethane foams. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins. The use of aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyols in isocyanate reactive compositions well known in the art and would achieve predictable results. Aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyols impart favorable property onto polyurethane foams such as increased flow and thermal insulation. One would have been motivated to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins to obtain better properties for polyurethane foams.
Adkins further teaches a base polyol/polyol blend comprised of less than 8% by weight ethylene oxide/C2H4O units (para 37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the ethylene oxide/C2H4O units of Adkins. Adkins discloses that when mixtures are used, the ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be added simultaneously or sequentially to provide internal blocks, terminal blocks or random distribution of the oxyethylene groups and/or oxypropylene groups in the polyether polyol (para 31). Bell discloses that suitable alkylene oxides for reacting with H-functional initiators comprise ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or mixtures of the two (para 25). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a low amount of ethylene oxide units as it would allow the polyols to have properties of ethylene oxide, such as hydrophilicity, while allowing for the value of these properties to be controlled. They would be able to tailor the produced polyurethane foams to have desired properties.
Regarding Claim 19: Bell further teaches a rigid polyurethane foam produced by the reaction of the isocyanate reactive composition and a polyisocyanate (para 60).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20220251374 A1) in view of Adkins et al (US 20210102040 A1) in further view of Zhao et al (CN 107501517 A, see machine translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 20: Modified Bell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as seen above. However, Bell is silent on the first hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol comprising of a sucrose-initiated polyether polyol.
Zhao teaches a polyurethane foam (para 3) comprising of a sucrose and propylene glycol initiated polyether polyol with a hydroxyl value of 400 to 460 mg KOH/g and a functionality of 3 to 5 (para 46), overlapping the claimed ranges. Zhao and Bell are analogous art as they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely rigid polyurethane foam. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol of Bell with the sucrose and propylene glycol initiated polyether polyol of Zhao. The polyether polyols of Bell and Zhao have similar hydroxyl numbers and functionalities. Zhao discloses that the viscosity of the sucrose and propylene glycol polyether polyol is 1000 to 2500 mPa·s and that the low viscosity improves the flowability of the foam system (para 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the substitution to improve the flowability of the foam system and improve foam molding.
Regarding Claim 21: Modified Bell teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as seen above. However, Bell is silent on the first hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol comprising of a sucrose-initiated polyether polyol.
Zhao teaches a polyurethane foam (para 3) comprising of a sucrose and propylene glycol initiated polyether polyol with a hydroxyl value of 400 to 460 mg KOH/g and a functionality of 3 to 5 (para 46), overlapping the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first hydroxyl-initiated polyether polyol of bell with the sucrose and propylene glycol initiated polyether polyol of Zhao. The polyether polyols of Bell and Zhao have similar hydroxyl numbers and functionalities. Zhao discloses that the viscosity of the sucrose and propylene glycol polyether polyol is 1000 to 2500 mPa·s and that the low viscosity improves the flowability of the foam system (para 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the substitution to improve the flowability of the foam system and improve foam molding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant argues that the office action fails to identity evidence of record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had any motivation to modify Bell with the amount of ethylene oxide units of Adkins. This argument is not persuasive as the office action provides motivation for the combination of references. Motivation to combine can be found in the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2143.01. The office action gives the motivation that “One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a low amount of ethylene oxide units as it would allow the polyols to have properties of ethylene oxide, such as hydrophilicity, while allowing for the value of these properties to be controlled. They would be able to tailor the produced polyurethane foams to have desired properties.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have the background knowledge on how the epoxy used in the polymerization of polyether polyols would affect the properties of a foam product. Propylene oxide is hydrophobic and has secondary hydroxyl groups while ethylene oxide is hydrophilic and has primary hydroxyl groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that PO is predominantly used in the production of rigid foams and would have been motivated to limit the amount of EO used. Bell teaches example polyols that only use propylene oxide as the alkylene oxide (para 149-154) for the production of a rigid polymer foam. As seen above Bell further discloses that mixtures of EO and PO are suitable for the production of the polyether polyols. One of ordinary skill in the art knowing that PO and EO impart different properties on to polyurethane foams would be motivated to use EO units in the amount taught by Adkins to produce different polyurethane foam products with desired properties. There is clear motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the primary reference therefore there is a rationale for obviousness.
B) ) Applicant argues that the office action fails to identity evidence of record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had any motivation to modify Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins as there is no evidence that the aromatic amine polyether polyol would provide better properties. This argument is not persuasive as the office action provides motivation for the combination of references. The office action provides motivation of the modification namely, “Aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyols impart favorable property onto polyurethane foams such as increased flow and thermal insulation. One would have been motivated to modify the polyol blend of Bell with the aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol of Adkins to obtain better properties for polyurethane foams.” Motivation to combine can be found in the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2143.01. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the background knowledge of the properties of an aromatic amine polyether polyol such as how the structure of the amine and the high functionality increase rigidity which would be beneficial to the rigid polyurethane foam of Bell. There is clear motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the primary reference therefore there is a rationale for obviousness.
C) Applicant argues that there is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the hydrocarbon blown rigid polyurethane foams that utilize a polymer polyol of Adkins to improve the HCFO-blown rigid foams of Bell. This argument is not persuasive as Bell and Adkins are analogous art. Bell, Adkins, and the instant application all deal with rigid polyurethane foams so one of ordinary skill the art would look to Adkins as a reference to improve on Bell. Further, while the polyurethane foam that Adkins teaches uses primarily a hydrocarbon as the blowing agent, Adkins teaches that HCFO can be used as additional blowing agent (para 98). It is not persuasive that the blowing agent and presence of polymer polyol would dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from looking to Adkins for improvement.
D) Applicant argues that the office action is in error as it did not consider the evidence in the specification supporting the patentability of the claimed invention specifically the comparative test data. This argument in not persuasive as the burden is on the applicant to establish that results are unexpected and significant and explain the proffered data (MPEP 716.02(b))
E) Applicant argues that the results of inventive examples 10-12 of the specification shown unexpected results and are evidence of non-obviousness. Applicant points to the different polyol blend and content of ethylene oxide units of 2 to 6% results in good thermal insulation and a phase stable isocyanate-reactive composition while utilizing significantly reduced HCFO. This argument is not persuasive as the specification does not provide evidence that the polyol blend and ethylene oxide are responsible for the unexpected results. Comparative example 1 shows that a foam that is phase stable, has good thermal insulation properties while utilizing significantly reduced HCFO without the inventive polyol blend and ethylene content. Further there is no evidence that the inventive example 12 has suitable compressive strength despite having the inventive polyol blend and ethylene content and inventive example 11 does not have a suitable thermal insulation of less than 0.130 taught in the specification (para 72).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J BELUNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571) 272-1197. 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.
/T.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
