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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 9, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 reads “The isocyanate reactive composition of one of claim 1”. It should read “The isocyanate reactive composition of claim 1”. 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 16 and 18 are 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 16 recites the limitation "the polyisocyanate" in lines 19 and 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what polyisocyanate this limitation is referring to as a polyisocyanate is not introduced until later in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 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 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 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 Claims 16, 18, and 19: 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.
Bell further teaches a rigid polyurethane foam produced by the reaction of the isocyanate reactive composition and a polyisocyanate (para 60), which reads on a polyurethane foam produced by the reaction of the polyurethane foam-forming composition.
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
Prosecution Insights