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 § 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 16-20, 22-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,173,515 to Von Bonin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0203936 to Fujita et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0006579 to Hannig et al.
As to claims 16-20, 22, 25-28, Von Bonin discloses a polyurethane foam comprising the
reaction product of 38% by weight of a base polyol component comprising polyol 1 that has an
OH number of 56 and a polyol 3 that has an OH number of 550 (Example 9), 2 to 30% by weight
of a phosphorus polyol component, a polyisocyanate, and fire retardant elements from 1 to
50% by weight of expandable graphite particles (Examples, Table). Von Bonin does not expressly teach a phosphorus containing polyol with the claimed OH
values and molecular weights.
However, Fujita discloses a phosphorus containing polyol represented by the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein in preferred embodiments, R1 is propylene, n is 3-6, and m =2. The hydroxyl
value is 335 (0086) and the molecular weight within preferred embodiments is 788 when n = 5
or within a range of 235 to 1430 g/mol. At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the phosphorus containing polyol of Von Bonin
with the phosphorus containing polyol of Fujita because they are taught as suitable in
analogous polyurethane condensation reactions and the polyol of Fujita maintains an essential
balance between flexibility and flame retardance of the polyurethane foam (0024-0025).
Von Bonin discloses a content of expandable graphite, but does not expressly disclose a
content of the entire polyurethane foam.
However, within the same field of endeavor Hannig discloses wherein expandable
graphite comprises 5 to 30% by weight of a surface region of the polyurethane foam layer
(0048), and particularly 18% by weight wherein the surface region has a density that ranges
from 10 to 800 kg/m3 (0050).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the content of expandable graphite within the claimed ranges as taught in Hannig in
the polyurethane foam region of Von Bonin to balance properties relating to flame-retardance
and layer thickness (0049).
With regards to UL-94 test, the polyurethane foam of Von Bonin containing the same
reactants and flame retardants would have the claimed V0 rating. If it is the applicants'
position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the
applicants' position; and (2) it would the Office's position that the application contains
inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with
only the claimed ingredients.
As to claims 23-24 and 29, Von Bonin discloses the addition of 2 to 30 wt% of amine
salts such as melamine cyanurate (4:2, 4:32-33).
As to claim 30, Von Bonin and Hannig disclose polyurethane foams within the claimed
densities that have the same corresponding flame retardant properties. The use as a battery
compression pad is not disclosed. However, this different feature is a matter of design option
for the use of fire resistant polyurethane foams.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the polyurethane of Von Bonin in a battery compression pad end use product because the prior art polymer and properties as claimed are the same and the prior art product would be capable of performing as a battery compression pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Von Bonin in view of Hannig fail to meet the limitation wherein the content of expandable graphite ranges from 12 wt% to 20 wt% for a total weight of the polyurethane foam and points to the teachings in Hannig relating to the described “surface region” of the material. This is not found persuasive because Hannig teaches the entire surface region in the polyurethane foam, which means 100% of the surface region in polyurethane foam. Hannig then teaches that 5 to 30 wt% of surface contains the expandable graphite. This range overlaps the claimed range. The claims are directed to a polyurethane foam, the claims do not specify where the content of expandable graphite is contained within the foam, i.e. at the surface or the interior or as part of the reaction mixture. Hannig teaches the expandable graphite is added as a solid to impart flame retardancy to the polyurethane foam. The fact that one invention of Hannig has the flame retardant solid on the surface does not differentiate the present invention from that of Hannig. Therefore, when looking to Hannig it would have been obvious to include expandable graphite to the polyurethane foam surface region of Von Bonin including those within the claimed amounts to provide desired flame retardancy to certain regions of the foam at a lower cost (less expandable graphite required).
It should be noted that Hannig further teaches that the expandable graphite is added to reaction mixture of polyol and polyisocyanate components. Hannig teaches that the amount of raw material can be adjusted at will and still arrive at the improved flame retardancy.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights