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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on August 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 26, 2026.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (TWI727207B, see machine translation for citations) in view of Yokota (JP 2017078131 A, see machine translation for citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 6: Chou teaches a foamed thermoplastic polyurethane (para 3) comprising an isocyanate, a polymeric polyol, a chain extender (para 14), and a nucleating agent (para 15). Chou further teaches the isocyanate comprising of diphenylmethane diisocyanate(MDI) (para 30 and 70), the polymeric polyol comprising of polytetramethylene glycol (PTMEG) (para 32), and the chain extender comprising of 1,4-butanediol (para 47). However, Chou is silent on a thinning agent having a structure represented by formula (I).
Yokota teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane composition (para 1) comprising 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of a polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether with a molecular weight of 300 to 1200 g/mol (para 27), overlapping the claimed range. The polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether reads on the structure of formula (I) wherein [R] is a hydrogen atom and the value of [n] can be calculated from the molecular weight. The molecular weight of the polyethylene glycol consists of the molecular weights of the methyl group (15 g/mol), the hydroxyl group (17 g/mol) and the repeating ethylene oxide (EO) group (44 g/mol). The amount of the repeating EO group can be calculated by the equation (MW- 32g/mol)/ 44 g/mol wherein MW is the molecular weight of the polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether. Using the molecular weight range taught by Yokota the amount of EO units is calculated as 6 (300-32/44) to about 26 (1200-32/44), overlapping the claimed range of [n]. The polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether further reads on the claimed limitation of a thinning agent as a compound that has the same structure as the one represented by formula (I) is interpreted to be a thinning agent. Yokota and Chou are analogous art as they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely article made from thermoplastic polyurethane. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether of Yokota to the foamed thermoplastic polyurethane of Chou. Yokota discloses that addition of polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether to a thermoplastic polyurethane resin provided a thermoplastic polyurethane with excellent scratch resistance and good appearance (para 8) that can be suitably used as a molding material for various applications where aesthetic design is required (para 14). Yokota further discloses that the molecular weight and amount of polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether allow a molded product to achieve sufficient scratch resistance and surface feel (para 27). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether to create a thermoplastic urethane product that is more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding Claim 2: Chou teaches the isocyanate present in an amount of 20 to 40 wt% based on the total weigh of the polyurethane (para 22).
Regarding Claim 3: Chou teaches the polymeric polyol having a molecular weight of 500 to 3500 g/mol (para 24), overlapping the claimed range. Chou further teaches the polymeric polyol in an amount of 50 to 80 wt% (para 26), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4: Chou teaches the chain extender present in an amount of 2 to 15 wt% (para 49), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5: Chou teaches the nucleating agent comprising of talc with an average particle size of 0.01 to 100 microns present in an amount of 0.1 to 1.5 wt% (para 58), overlapping the claimed range.
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