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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of claim 5, the term “is” is unnecessary and this typographical error needs to be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al.(20030096884) in view of Neff et al.(20160046779).
Nishida et al. discloses flame retardant polyurethane foams prepared from polyether polyols as claimed [including as defined by claim 7], and carbodiimide and/or uretonimine modified 2,4’- and 4,4’-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) as claimed having amounts of modification as claimed that have elongation percentages meeting those defined by the claims and pass stringent flame retardant test {see paras [0024]-[0044], Examples and claims}.
Nishida et al. differs from applicants’ claims in that expanded graphite as claimed is not particularly included in their foam products. However, Neff et al. discloses employment of expandable graphite meeting the requirements of applicants’ claims in amounts as defined by applicants’ claims, including claim 5, to be known and useful for the purpose of imparting flame retardancy to closely related polyurethane foam preparations {see paras [0014]-[0018] and [0038], Examples and claim}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized the expandible graphite of Neff et al. in amounts as provided for by Neff et al. in the polyurethane foams of Nishida et al. for the purpose of imparting enhanced flame retardancy effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Additionally, though the specific fire retardant testing specified by the claims is not specified by Nishida et al., stringent test are passed by its disclosed foams and foams of Neff et al. that include expandable graphite flame retardant in amounts as claimed do pass the tests of applicants’ claims with V-0 rating. Accordingly, it is held that it would necessarily follow that the foams of both Nishida et al. taken alone and/or through its combination with Neff et al. would pass the UL94 standard with a V-0 rating as claimed [including as defined by claim 8] as well.
Regarding claims 2-4, owing to the utilization of the expandible graphite of applicants’ invention {see para [0038] and Examples}, it is held that it would necessarily follow that the expandable graphite particles of Neff et al. utilized in the combination would have particle sizes as defined by these claims as well.
Regarding claim 6, Nishida et al. differs from applicants’ claim in that prepolymers as claimed are not particularly included in their foam products. However, Nishida et al. discloses that prepolymers of MDI and active hydrogen compounds (i.e. polyols) {para [0029]} may be utilized to improve formability effects. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized the prepolymers of Nishida et al. in the preparations of the combination of Nishida et al. and Neff et al. for the purpose of improving formability effects in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, no other flame retardant requirements are set forth by Nishida et al. Accordingly, difference over Nishida et al. is not evident through the additional recitations of claim 9.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plaver et al. and Klesczewski et al. are cited for their disclosures of very closely related fire retardant foam preparations in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights