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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 4/14/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Vries et al (WO 2019/014593 A1) in view of Wu (US 6,512,033 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12, De Vries teaches a polyurethane system formed with reactants of (A) an isocyanate component (e.g., Part I); and (B) (e.g., Part II) a polyol composition wherein the polyol composition (B) comprises catalysts of a non-tin metal compound and an amine-based catalyst, wherein the non-tin metal compound is selected from the group consisting of at least one zinc-containing organic metal catalyst (e.g., zinc octoate, zinc naphthenate, and/or zinc neodecanoate); wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises a chemically acting blowing agent that is water; wherein the amine-based catalyst is a blocked amine catalyst; wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises polyesterols (e.g., polyester polyol); wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises a chain extender; wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises auxiliary and/or additional agents (e.g., fillers and/or dispersing aids); wherein the isocyanate component (A) comprises polyisocyanates (abstract; para 3, 10, 28, 33, 36, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52).
De Vries fails to expressly teach wherein the polyol composition (B) comprises polytetrahydrofuran. However, De Vries teaches exemplary polyols include those disclosed in Wu, U.S. Pat. No. 6,512,033 at column 4, line 10 to line 64 (para 28).
Wu teaches suitable polyols include polytetramethylene ether diols (col 4, lines 10-29) which would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage that of poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol (i.e., polytetrahydrofuran); or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol (i.e., polytetrahydrofuran).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol of Wu in the polyurethane system formed of De Vries, since De Vries gives direct motivation, and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “non-solvent,” De Vries fails to expressly state the polyurethane system is non-solvent. However, De Vries teaches embodiments that specifically lack a solvent (claim 1) which would have suggested that of a non-solvent polyurethane system. Wu also suggests the use of plasticizers in its compositions as an alternative to solvents ( col 7, lines 8-15).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, De Vries teaches one or more zinc cocatalysts may be present in an amount of about 0.05 percent by weight to about 5 percent by weight based on the weight of Part 2 (i.e., Part B) (para 10); and the amine containing compound and/or the blocked compound may be present in Part 2, the polyol component, in an amount based on the weight of Part 2 of about 0.05 percent by weight or greater and about 5.0 percent by weight or less (para 43). These ranges lie within the ranges of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 13, De Vries teaches the constituents and composition of the non-solvent polyurethane of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess an isocyanate index in a range from 80 to 200. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Regarding claim 23, De Vries teaches its composition is used as an adhesive (para 2), i.e., wherein the non-solvent polyurethane system is configured for use as a polyurethane layer (e.g., adhesive layer) of an artificial leather.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that neither De Vries nor Wu teach or suggest the
combination of polytetrahydrofuran and catalysts of a non-tin metal compound and an amine-based catalyst. At most, Wu only broadly teaches that poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol (i.e., polytetrahydrofuran) is an option for forming a polyether prepolymer (see col 4, lines 10-29).
This is not persuasive. De Vries teaches a polyurethane system formed with reactants of (A) an isocyanate component (e.g., Part I); and (B) (e.g., Part II) a polyol composition wherein the polyol composition (B) comprises catalysts of a non-tin metal compound and an amine-based catalyst, wherein the non-tin metal compound is selected from the group consisting of at least one zinc-containing organic metal catalyst (e.g., zinc octoate, zinc naphthenate, and/or zinc neodecanoate); wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises a chemically acting blowing agent that is water; wherein the amine-based catalyst is a blocked amine catalyst; wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises polyesterols (e.g., polyester polyol); wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises a chain extender; wherein the polyol composition (B) further comprises auxiliary and/or additional agents (e.g., fillers and/or dispersing aids); wherein the isocyanate component (A) comprises polyisocyanates (abstract; para 3, 10, 28, 33, 36, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52).
De Vries fails to expressly teach wherein the polyol composition (B) comprises polytetrahydrofuran. However, De Vries teaches exemplary polyols include those disclosed in Wu, U.S. Pat. No. 6,512,033 at column 4, line 10 to line 64 (para 28).
Wu teaches suitable polyols include polytetramethylene ether diols (col 4, lines 10-29) which would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage that of poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol (i.e., polytetrahydrofuran); or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol (i.e., polytetrahydrofuran).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol of Wu in the polyurethane system formed of De Vries, since De Vries gives direct motivation, and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the embodiment of the instant claims results in a polyurethane system with a good peeling strength at a lower curing temperature, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, Devries teaches two-part polyurethane adhesives, and catalysts useful in forming the adhesives, that rapidly develop adhesive strength when cured, and that are cured at a lower temperature (para 2, 59).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights