DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1-2, 6 are supported by the specification. The new claims 20-22 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 § 112
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention (the bond strength is weakened…) without using a specific substrate, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15, 17-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “polpolyhydric alcohols”, what is it? For purposes of expediting prosecution, it is interpreted as polyhydric alcohols.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the solubilizer is for the electrolyte.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 15, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Housel (US 2008/0073622) as evidenced by Inolex Chemical Co (Lexorez 1105-HV2) and in view of Caillouette et al (US 2018/0030309)..
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 17-20, 22: Housel teaches a curable composition comprising about 65wt% of a polyol, 0.65-3.2 wt% of a conductive additive 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium methanesulfonate and polyisocyanate TDI, and water (0014, 0020, table 7). The polyol can be a polyether polyol of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide [0021-0024], which can function as a solubilizer. One exemplified ratio of NCO: active hydrogen atoms is provided in table 7, wherein Lexorez 1105-HV2 has a hydroxyl value of 55 mgKOH/g, 100g of Lexorez 1105-HV2 has 0.1 mol of OH group, 47.25 g of TDI has 0.54 mol of NCO group. 4g of water has 0.44 mol of active hydrogen atoms when reacting with NCO. The ratio of NCO:active hydrogen atoms is 1:1. Housel further teaches polyols based on other repeat structures may be used as well [0021].
Housel does not teach the polyol comprises a fatty polyol.
However, Caillouette discloses natural oil polyol such as castor oil is suitable as a polyol in urethane chemistry for reducing environmental footprints [0035]. Castor oil has the claimed Mn and hydroxyl number. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a mixture of fatty polyol and polyether polyol in any weight ratio for preparation of urethane to reduce environmental footprints, because it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Housel is silent with respect to the bond strength of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Housel and Caillouette have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim 15: it is noted that the instant claims do not distinguish fatty polyol from fatty alcohol, castor oil reads on both.
Claim 21: the polyol has a molecular weight of 1000-6000. If the molecular weight is weight average then it falls within the claimed range. If the molecular weight is number average then the weight average is about 1500-9,000 because it has a polydispersity of up to 1.5 because it is produced by ring-opening polymerization resulting in a relatively narrow but definite distribution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights