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, claims 1-16 and 18 in the reply filed on May 4, 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Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 4, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 2, 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes a minor spelling error. Claim 18 recites “optioally substituted,” which is construed to be intended to read “optionally substituted.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20210070917, hereinafter referred to as “Singh”) in view of Gelfer et al. (US20160272752, hereinafter referred to as “Gelfer”).
As to Claim 1: Singh teaches a composition that forms a polyurethane foam comprising an isocyanate reactive compound which may be a polyol ([0027]). Singh further teaches wherein the composition comprises an amine catalyst compound which may be pentamethyldiethylenetriamine ([0044]) (i.e., a tertiary amine) which may be combined with a non-amine catalyst which may be a metal carboxylate compound (e.g., zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, bismuth(2-ethylhexanoate)) ([0046]) the structure of which reads on the claimed metal carboxylate. Singh further teaches wherein the composition comprises a halogenated olefin compound that serves as a blowing agent for the composition ([0059]) (i.e., a physical blowing agent as construed from the instant specification para. [0042]) and water ([0036]). Singh teaches wherein the composition comprises an isocyanate compound which may be a polyisocyanate compound ([0021]).
Singh is silent towards wherein the composition comprises a β-dicarbonyl compound having the claimed structure.
Gelfer teaches a related polyurethane foam composition which may comprise a β-diketone (i.e., a β-dicarbonyl) compound ([0056]) having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R may be an alkyl group (linear, branched, or cyclic) having 1 to 8 carbon atoms ([0056]), which reads on the claimed β-dicarbonyl compound. Gelfer further teaches that the β-diketone compound is included to improve the interfacial bond between sections of the polyurethane and to decrease material defects ([0058]). Singh and Gelfer are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, foam-forming polyurethane compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a β-dicarbonyl compound, such as that taught by Gelfer, within the composition taught by Singh and the motivation would have been that Gelfer teaches that such a compound is recognized within the art as a suitable additive known to improve polyurethane foam compositions by increasing interfacial bonds ([0058]), which decreases material defects and limits hydrolytic degradation of the material ([0086]).
As to Claim 2: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh teaches wherein the composition comprises an isocyanate compound which may be a polyisocyanate compound ([0021]). Singh further teaches wherein the polyisocyanate includes diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) ([0021]), which reads on the claimed methylene-bridged polyphenyl polyisocyanate.
As to Claims 8: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh further teaches wherein the blowing agent may be a halogenated olefin (HFO) (i.e., a halogenated hydrocarbon) ([0059]-[0061]) and teaches exemplary compositions comprising the same at an amount of 10 parts by weight relative to 95.6 total polyol premix (excluding isocyanate) (Table 1), or about 10% by weight, which is within the claimed range.
As to Claim 9: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh teaches exemplary foam compositions comprising 2 parts by weight water and 10 parts by of water and 10 parts by weight of HFO-1233zd (i.e., a physical blowing agent, see [0060]) (Table 1, Foam A), a 5:1 ratio, which is within the claimed range.
As to Claims 11-12: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh further teaches wherein the composition comprises a non-amine catalyst which may be a metal carboxylate compound (e.g., zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, bismuth(2-ethylhexanoate)) ([0046]) the structure of which reads on the claimed metal carboxylate wherein each R has 7 carbon atoms.
As to Claims 13-14: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh is silent towards wherein the composition comprises a β-dicarbonyl compound having the claimed structure.
Gelfer teaches a related polyurethane foam composition which may comprise a β-diketone (i.e., a β-dicarbonyl) compound ([0056]) having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R may be an alkyl group (linear, branched, or cyclic) having 1 to 8 carbon atoms ([0056]), and further teaches wherein the species of β-diketone may be, inter alia, pentane-2,4-dione (i.e., corresponding to the claimed 2,4-pentadione). Gelfer further teaches that the β-diketone compound is included to improve the interfacial bond between sections of the polyurethane and to decrease material defects ([0058]). Singh and Gelfer are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, foam-forming polyurethane compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a β-dicarbonyl compound, such as that taught by Gelfer, within the composition taught by Singh and the motivation would have been that Gelfer teaches that such a compound is recognized within the art as a suitable additive known to improve polyurethane foam compositions by increasing interfacial bonds ([0058]), which decreases material defects and limits hydrolytic degradation of the material ([0086]).
As to Claims 15-16: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Singh is silent towards wherein the composition comprises a β-dicarbonyl compound having the claimed structure.
Gelfer teaches a related polyurethane foam composition which may comprise a β-diketone (i.e., a β-dicarbonyl) compound ([0056]) having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R may be an alkyl group (linear, branched, or cyclic) having 1 to 8 carbon atoms ([0056]), and further teaches wherein the species of β-diketone may be, inter alia, pentane-2,4-dione. Gelfer further teaches that the β-diketone compound may be used alongside “non-mercury catalysts” that are zinc carboxylate catalysts (i.e., corresponding to the claimed metal carboxylate). Gelfer teaches that the weight of the β-diketone compound may be from 1 to 5 relative to that of the non-mercury catalysts ([0060]) (i.e., a weight ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 (β-dicarbonyl:metal carboxylate).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20210070917, hereinafter referred to as “Singh”) in view of Gelfer et al. (US20160272752, hereinafter referred to as “Gelfer”) and further in view of Micheletti et al. (US20180051121, hereinafter referred to as “Micheletti”).
As to Claim 3: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Singh teaches that the composition comprises isocyanate reactive compounds which may be polyether polyols including blends thereof ([0027]-[0028]), but is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed combination of polyols.
Micheletti teaches a related isocyanate-reactive composition and foams formed thereof (Abstract) including a polyol blend comprising at least an amine initiated polyol which is an aromatic amine ([0003]). Micheletti further teaches an exemplary amine initiated polyol that is a toluenediamine initiated propxylated polyol ([0036]), which reads on the claimed product of an H-functional starter and an alkylene oxide, wherein the toluenediamine is an H-functional starter and propylene oxide is an alkylene oxide. Micheletti does not recite or require further species for the components which read on the claimed H-functional starter or alkylene oxide and is therefore construed to read on the claimed amounts for the same. Micheletti further teaches that the that is a toluenediamine initiated propxylated polyol has a functionality of 4 and a hydroxyl number of 430 mg KOH/g ([0036]), which are within the claimed ranges. Singh, Gelfer, and Micheletti are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, isocyanate-reactive compositions and polyurethane foam compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol, such as that described by Micheletti, for the polyether polyols of Singh and the motivation would have been that Micheletti teaches such a structure is recognized within the art as a known polyether polyol species suitable for forming polyurethanes. It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination — see MPEP 2144.07.
As to Claim 4: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 3 (supra).
Singh teaches that the composition comprises isocyanate reactive compounds which may be polyether polyols including blends thereof ([0027]-[0028]), but is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed combination of polyols.
Micheletti teaches a related isocyanate-reactive composition and foams formed thereof (Abstract) including a polyol blend comprising at least an amine initiated polyol which is an aromatic amine ([0003]). Micheletti further teaches an exemplary amine initiated polyol that is a toluenediamine initiated propxylated polyol ([0036]), which reads on the claimed product of an H-functional starter and an alkylene oxide, wherein the toluenediamine is an H-functional starter and propylene oxide is an alkylene oxide. Micheletti teaches wherein the toluenediamine initiated propxylated polyol is present within a blend of polyols in an amount of 13.5 parts relative to 91.1 parts by weight of total polyols (Table 1, [0037]) (14.8 wt% by weight based on the total weight of the polyol blend), which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an aromatic amine-initiated polyether polyol in the claimed amount, such as that described by Micheletti, for the polyether polyols of Singh and the motivation would have been that Micheletti teaches such a structure and amount is recognized within the art as a known polyether polyol species suitable for forming rigid polyurethanes.
As to Claim 5: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 4 (supra).
Singh teaches that the composition comprises isocyanate reactive compounds which may be polyether polyols including blends thereof ([0027]-[0028]), but is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed combination of polyols.
Micheletti teaches a related isocyanate-reactive composition and foams formed thereof (Abstract) including a polyol blend comprising at least a high functional polyether polyol that is a sucrose- or sorbitol-initiated polyether polyol ([0015]) (i.e., a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol). Micheletti further teaches an exemplary polyol that is a sorbitol initiated propoxylated polyol ([0036]), which reads on the claimed product of an H-functional starter and an alkylene oxide, wherein the sorbitol is an H-functional starter and propylene oxide is an alkylene oxide. Micheletti does not recite or require further species for the components which read on the claimed H-functional starter or alkylene oxide and is therefore construed to read on the claimed amounts for the same. Micheletti further teaches that the that is a sorbitol initiated propoxylated polyol has a functionality of 6 and a hydroxyl number of 460 to 495 mg KOH/g ([0036]), which are within the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol, such as that described by Micheletti, for the polyether polyols of Singh and the motivation would have been that Micheletti teaches such a structure is recognized within the art as a known polyether polyol species suitable for forming polyurethanes. It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination — see MPEP 2144.07.
As to Claim 6: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 5 (supra).
Singh teaches that the composition comprises isocyanate reactive compounds which may be polyether polyols including blends thereof ([0027]-[0028]), but is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed combination of polyols.
Micheletti teaches a related isocyanate-reactive composition and foams formed thereof (Abstract) including a polyol blend comprising at least a high functional polyether polyol that is a sucrose- or sorbitol-initiated polyether polyol ([0015]) (i.e., a saccharide-initiated polyether polyol). Micheletti further teaches that the high functional polyether polyol that is a sucrose- or sorbitol-initiated polyether polyol may be present in an amount of 20 to 60 wt% ([0006]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range taught by Micheletti within the composition of Singh, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Micheletti suggests, that the overlapping portion is a usable range for a relative amount of saccharide-initiated polyether polyol within a polyol blend that results having properties amenable to forming rigid cellular polyurethane foams.
As to Claim 7: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 6 (supra).
Singh teaches that the composition comprises isocyanate reactive compounds which may be polyether polyols including blends thereof ([0027]-[0028]), but is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed combination of polyols.
Micheletti teaches a related isocyanate-reactive composition and foams formed thereof (Abstract) including a polyol blend comprising at least a low functional polyether polyol initiated by a compound which may be, inter alia, glycerin ([0018]) (i.e., a triol). Micheletti further teaches an exemplary polyol that is a glycerine initiated propoxylated polyol ([0036]), which reads on the claimed product of an H-functional starter and an alkylene oxide, wherein the glycerine is an H-functional starter and propylene oxide is an alkylene oxide. Micheletti does not recite or require further species for the components which read on the claimed H-functional starter or alkylene oxide and is therefore construed to read on the claimed amounts for the same. Micheletti further teaches that the that is a glycerine initiated propoxylated polyol has a functionality of 3, which is within the claimed range. Micheletti teaches that the low functional polyether polyol initiated by a compound which may be, inter alia, glycerin ([0018]) may be present in an amount of 2 to 30 wt% and have an OH number of 50 to 400 mg KOH/g ([0007]), which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range taught by Micheletti within the composition of Singh, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Micheletti suggests, that the overlapping portion is a usable range for a relative amount of triol/glycerine-initiated polyether polyol within a polyol blend that results having properties amenable to forming rigid cellular polyurethane foams.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20210070917, hereinafter referred to as “Singh”) in view of Gelfer et al. (US20160272752, hereinafter referred to as “Gelfer”) and further in view of Pradhan et al. (US20170298172, hereinafter referred to as “Pradhan”).
As to Claim 10: Singh and Gelfer teach the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Singh teaches that the composition may comprise various species of tertiary amine catalysts and combinations thereof ([0044]), but does not explicitly contemplate blends of block and unblocked amines or relative amounts thereof.
Pradhan teaches a related composition for forming a polyurethane foam (Abstract) comprising at least an amine catalyst system which may be a mixture of triethylenediamines in which one species may be blocked such that catalytic action is delayed ([0093]) and one may be unblocked ([0097]). Pradhan further teaches exemplary compositions comprising catalyst B (triethylene diamine, unblocked, see [0157]) in an amount of 0.65 parts and catalyst C (delayed action of acid blocked bis(dimethylaminoethyl)ether ([0158]) in an amount of 0.16 parts (Table 1, Formulation 8), which yields a weight ratio (0.65:0.16) of approximately 4:1, which is within the claimed range. Singh, Gelfer, and Pradhan are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polyurethane foam forming compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a blend of a blocked and unblocked tertiary amine catalyst, such as that taught by Pradhan, within the composition of Singh and the motivation would have been that Pradhan teaches that such a blend is known within the art as suitable for catalyzing polyurethane foam formation with sufficiently delayed cure time for application.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20210070917, hereinafter referred to as “Singh”) in view of Gelfer et al. (US20160272752, hereinafter referred to as “Gelfer”).
As to Claim 18: Singh teaches a composition that forms a polyurethane foam comprising an isocyanate reactive compound which may be a polyol ([0027]). Singh further teaches wherein the composition comprises an amine catalyst compound which may be pentamethyldiethylenetriamine ([0044]) (i.e., a tertiary amine) which may be combined with a non-amine catalyst which may be a metal carboxylate compound (e.g., zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, bismuth(2-ethylhexanoate)) ([0046]) the structure of which reads on the claimed metal carboxylate. Singh further teaches wherein the composition comprises a halogenated olefin compound that serves as a blowing agent for the composition ([0059]) (i.e., a physical blowing agent as construed from the instant specification para. [0042]) and water ([0036]). Singh teaches wherein the composition comprises an isocyanate compound which may be a polyisocyanate compound ([0021]).
Singh is silent towards wherein the composition comprises a β-dicarbonyl compound having the claimed structure.
Gelfer teaches a related polyurethane foam composition which may comprise a β-diketone (i.e., a β-dicarbonyl) compound ([0056]) having the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R may be an alkyl group (linear, branched, or cyclic) having 1 to 8 carbon atoms ([0056]), which reads on the claimed β-dicarbonyl compound. Gelfer further teaches that the β-diketone compound is included to improve the interfacial bond between sections of the polyurethane and to decrease material defects ([0058]). Singh and Gelfer are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, foam-forming polyurethane compositions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a β-dicarbonyl compound, such as that taught by Gelfer, within the composition taught by Singh and the motivation would have been that Gelfer teaches that such a compound is recognized within the art as a suitable additive known to improve polyurethane foam compositions by increasing interfacial bonds ([0058]), which decreases material defects and limits hydrolytic degradation of the material ([0086]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 on (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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights