CTNF 18/549,509 CTNF 90061 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement Foreign Patent Cite # 3 of the IDS received 11/21/2023 has been lined through as a legible copy of the foreign patent document has not been received. In the interest of compact prosecution, the cited EP document has been considered and is included in the attached PTO-892. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Applicant’s definition of “open-cell” foams as those with an open cell content at least 80% is acknowledged. See Page 3 of the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 112225862A) as evidenced by Teng (CN 121270402A), Miao (CN 116063026A), Song (CN 115651148A), Huntsman (Jeffamine D400 Information), and BASF (M20S Information). As the cited CN publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to . Regarding Claims 1-4, 6-8, 14, and 16 , Li teaches open cell rigid polyurethane foams (¶ 1) and describes an embodiment in Example 5 where foam is derived via reacting polyisocyanate with a polyol composition comprising roughly 61.9 wt% of polyol 450L, derived from propoxylating sorbitol and/or sucrose and glycerol, and 8 wt% polyol F3128, derived from ethoxylating/propoxylating glycerol, and 5.2 wt% of Ca(OH)2 saturated water (c.a. 0.16 wt%; see ¶ 41) in the presence of O501 cell opening agent (¶ 20, 22, Table 1). While not indicating what the isocyanate index is, the isocyanate index is readily calculated from literature data corresponding to the materials used according to the table below. Parts by Weight OH Number or %NCO Equivalent Weight Molar Equivalents Literature Reference Polyols F3128 8 28 2004 0.004 ¶ 137 of Teng A305 5 336.6 166.7 0.03 ¶ n0049 of Miao 450L 60 459 122.2 0.49 ¶ n0038 of Song Polyetheramine D400 2 115 0.017 Huntsman Monohydroxy Alcohol Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether 2 148.2 0.013 Sat’d Ca(OH)2 5 9 0.556 Polyisocyanate M20S 110 31.5 133.4 0.825 BASF The calculated NCO index is seen to be roughly [0.825 / 1.11] x 100 = 74.3. Due to the low content of saturated Ca(OH)2 (0.16 wt%), the equivalent weight of the saturated solution is approximated to be that of water. As evidenced by Song at ¶ n0038, 450L has a functionality of about 5.7. Li reports Example 5 has an open cell content of 99.9% (¶ 54). Regarding Claim 9 , Li teaches polyol F3128 is derived from ethoxylating/propoxylating glycerol (¶ 20), implied to have a functionality of roughly 3. Regarding Claim 11 , the examples of Li only use water containing small quantities of calcium hydroxide material. Li indicates the calcium hydroxide reacts with the produced carbon dioxide to form carbonates (¶ 16). Therefore, water is seen to be the only blowing agent present. Regarding Claim 13 , Li teaches polymeric MDI (¶ 15). Regarding Claims 17 and 18 , Li teaches the foams are useful as a core material in vacuum insulation panels (¶ 38) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 112225862A) as evidenced by Teng (CN 121270402A), Miao (CN 116063026A), Song (CN 115651148A), Huntsman (Jeffamine D400 Information), BASF (M20S Information), and Hahn (US 2020/0017624 A1). As the cited CN publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to . The discussion regarding Li , Teng , Miao , Song , Huntsman , and BASF within ¶ 6-12 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 10 , as evidenced by Hahn , Ortegol 501 is based on polybutadiene macromolecular compound (¶ 57) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112225862A) in view of Ionescu (Chemistry and Technology of Polyols for Polyurethanes, Chapter 3; cited 11/21/2023) as evidenced by Teng (CN 121270402A), Miao (CN 116063026A), Song (CN 115651148A), Huntsman (Jeffamine D400 Information), and BASF (M20S Information). As the cited CN publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to . Li teaches open cell rigid polyurethane foams (¶ 1) and describes an embodiment in Example 5 where foam is derived via reacting polyisocyanate with a polyol composition comprising roughly 61.9 wt% of polyol 450L, derived from propoxylating sorbitol and/or sucrose and glycerol, and 8 wt% polyol F3128, derived from ethoxylating/propoxylating glycerol, and 5.2 wt% of Ca(OH)2 saturated water (c.a. 0.16 wt%; see ¶ 41) in the presence of O501 cell opening agent (¶ 20, 22, Table 1). While not indicating what the isocyanate index is, the isocyanate index is readily calculated from literature data corresponding to the materials used according to the table below. Parts by Weight OH Number or %NCO Equivalent Weight Molar Equivalents Literature Reference Polyols F3128 8 28 2004 0.004 ¶ 137 of Teng A305 5 336.6 166.7 0.03 ¶ n0049 of Miao 450L 60 459 122.2 0.49 ¶ n0038 of Song Polyetheramine D400 2 115 0.017 Huntsman Monohydroxy Alcohol Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether 2 148.2 0.013 Sat’d Ca(OH)2 5 9 0.556 Polyisocyanate M20S 110 31.5 133.4 0.825 BASF The calculated NCO index is seen to be roughly [0.825 / 1.11] x 100 = 74.3. Due to the low content of saturated Ca(OH)2 (0.16 wt%), the equivalent weight of the saturated solution is approximated to be that of water. As evidenced by Song at ¶ n0038, 450L has a functionality of about 5.7. Li reports Example 5 has an open cell content of 99.9% (¶ 54). Regarding Claim 5 , Li differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular contents of sucrose/sorbitol is not described. In this regard, Ionescu teaches it was known the relative quantity of differing functional initiators directly impact the resulting functionality of the obtained polyol (Pages 34-38). Likewise, the relative quantities of alkylene oxide directly impact the resulting OH number, since such is an indirect measure of polyol molecular weight for a given functionality (Pages 40-41). Therefore, the relative quantity of saccharide initiator is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal quantities of saccharide initiator within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable functionalities and OH numbers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112225862A) in view of Ulrich (Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology) as evidenced by Teng (CN 121270402A), Miao (CN 116063026A), Song (CN 115651148A), Huntsman (Jeffamine D400 Information), and BASF (M20S Information). As the cited CN publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to . The discussion regarding Li , Teng , Miao , Song , Huntsman , and BASF within ¶ 20-22 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 15 , Li teaches methods in which the foams are produced via molding (¶ 48). Li differs from the subject matter claimed in that a slabstock process is not described. Ulrich teaches it was known rigid foams are produced in accordance with the desired product configuration and indicates for insulation purposes, rigid foams can be produced in slab or bun form on continuous lines (Page 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the foams of Weigmann using a slabstock process because doing so would afford the creation of products suitable for insulation in accordance with the teachings of Ulrich . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigmann (EP 1512707 A2). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to . Regarding Claims 1-4, 6-8, 14, and 16 , Weigmann teaches rigid open cell foams (¶ 1-5) and describes an embodiment in Example 1 where foam is obtained by reacting polyisocyanate with polyol composition comprising roughly 66.1 wt% polyether polyol that is a reaction product of sucrose/glycerol with propylene oxide having an OH number of 485, 18.9 wt% of polyether polyol that is a reaction product of trimethylolpropane with propylene oxide having an OH number of 160, and 1.7 wt% of water in the presence of Ortegol 501 cell opening agent at an isocyanate index of 115 (¶ 54-55, 60). The resulting foam has 92% open cells (Table 2). The functionality of the sucrose/glycerol polyol in the examples is not indicated, but Weigmann teaches such a functionality is greater than 4 (¶ 11, 13). Thus, while not describing functionality values within the claimed range of 5.0-7.9, Weigmann nevertheless teaches overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Weigmann suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Weigmann . See MPEP 2123. Regarding Claim 9 , the example of Weigmann uses a polyether polyol that is a reaction product of trimethylolpropane with propylene oxide having an OH number of 160, which is implied to have a functionality of roughly 3. Regarding Claim 11 , water can be used as sole blowing agent (Examples, ¶ 41). Regarding Claim 12 , Weigmann teaches physical blowing agents can be used in combination with water (¶ 38). Regarding Claim 13 , Weigmann teaches polyisocyanates such as crude MDI (¶ 54), construed as polymeric MDI. Regarding Claims 17 and 18 , Weigmann teaches vacuum insulation panels formed with the foams, which are used as core material (¶ 47-51) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigmann (EP 1512707 A2) in view of Ionescu (Chemistry and Technology of Polyols for Polyurethanes, Chapter 3; cited 11/21/2023). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to . The discussion regarding Weigmann within ¶ 29-35 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 5 , Weigmann teaches glycerol/sucrose should be used such that a functionality is greater than 4 and OH number greater than 450 is used (¶ 11, 13). Weigmann differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular contents of sucrose is not described. In this regard Ionescu teaches it was known the relative quantity of differing functional initiators directly impact the resulting functionality of the obtained polyol (Pages 34-38). Likewise, the relative quantities of alkylene oxide directly impact the resulting OH number, since such is an indirect measure of polyol molecular weight for a given functionality (Pages 40-41). Therefore, the relative quantity of saccharide initiator is a known result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal quantities of saccharide initiator within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable functionalities and OH numbers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigmann (EP 1512707 A2) as evidenced by Hahn (US 2020/0017624 A1). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to . The discussion regarding Weigmann within ¶ 29-35 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 10 , as evidenced by Hahn , Ortegol 501 is based on polybutadiene macromolecular compound (¶ 57) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigmann (EP 1512707 A2) in view of Ulrich (Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to . The discussion regarding Weigmann within ¶ 29-35 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 15 , Weigmann teaches foams can be produced continuously in known manners, and can be sawed to an appropriate panel size (¶ 45, 47, and 51). Although Weigmann does not explicitly state the foams are produced via a slabstock process, Ulrich teaches it was known rigid foams are commonly produced in slab or bun form on continuous lines (Page 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the foams of Weigmann using a slabstock process, thereby predictably affording the workable continuous production of foams suitable to be cut into insulation panels. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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. /STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 9 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 10 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 11 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 12 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/549,509 Page 13 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights