DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 07/24/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 5, 9 and 14 are canceled. Claims 22-25 are new. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 19-25 are pending.
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 Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The Applicant argues that reference Dey does not teach the amended claims 1 and 6 (pg. 6-7). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1
In response to applicant's argument that reference Nichols is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nichols also relates to a polyurethane composition comprising di/polyisocyanates (Nichols, C1/L15-19).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reactive rheology modifier of Dey to comprise natural beeswax, as demonstrated by Nichols, so that the composition has the necessary plasticity, tack, lack of nerve, a wide temperature range of processing characteristics and compatibility with compounding ingredients.
In response to applicant's argument that Nicholes involves elastomers/rubber, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., shear mixing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Nichols and Dey do not teach the Applicant’s alleged unexpected results (pg. 7), 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).
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the two-component polyurethane adhesive”. Claim language should be consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 25 recites “an index of from 1.05 to 1.3”. This is being interpreted, in view of the originally filed specification, such that the term index is (number of isocyanate groups/number of groups reacting with the isocyanate) x 100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication US20110311833A1 (‘Parker’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a composition.
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 23-24, Parker teaches a two-part curable polyurethane adhesive composition ([0019]) comprising:
a first part ([0024] and [0095]) comprising an isocyanate reactive component ([0024] and [0095], ground plant meal or isolated polypeptide composition), a sustainable reactive rheology modifier ([0030]. Wax present in the ground plant meal, see [0109] and [0443]) comprising beeswax ([0205]), and glycerol ([0232]); and
a second part ([0024], first part/Part A) comprising a polyisocyanate,
wherein, based on the total weight of the polyurethane adhesive composition, sustainable components are present in an amount of at least 60 wt. % ([0046] and [0224], about 10% to about 98% (w/w) isolated polypeptide composition. The isolated polypeptide composition can be derived from renewable agriculture biomass, [0027]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: the second part comprises an isocyanate functional polyurethane prepolymer ([0023], polyisocyanate-based prepolymer) that is the reaction product of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) or modified MDI ([0041] and [0156]) and an isocyanate reactive component ([0151-0152]).
Claim 3: the isocyanate reactive component is from 95 to 100 % sustainable ([0112], isolated polypeptide composition can be derived from renewable plant biomass).
Claim 4: the isocyanate reactive component further comprises a sustainable plant oil having 2 to 4 hydroxyl groups ([0030] and [0033], triglyceride. [0175]).
Claim 23: at least one of the first part or the second part further comprise at least one additive ([0046]).
Claim 24: the sustainable components are plant-based ([0027]).
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 6-8, 10-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20160298009A1 (‘Dey’) in view of U.S. Publication US20110311833A1 (‘Parker’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6-8, 10-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22 and 25, Dey teaches a separation apparatus (Fig. 1, [0013], reverse osmosis module 10) comprising:
a membrane layer (Fig. 1, [0073], semipermeable membrane 14) capable of separating a first constituent from a feed fluid mixture comprising the first constituent and a second constituent ([0004]); and
a mixed, two-part polyurethane adhesive (Fig. 1, [0073], adhesive composition 12) disposed on one or more discrete areas on the membrane layer (Fig. 1, [0074]), wherein the two-part polyurethane adhesive comprises:
a first part comprising an isocyanate reactive component ([0008], second part), a sustainable reactive rheology modifier ([0064]), and glycerol ([0040]); and
a second part comprising a polyisocyanate ([0008], first part),
wherein, based on the total weight of the two-part polyurethane adhesive composition, sustainable components are present in an amount of at least 60 wt. % ([0069], the adhesive composition can contain about 10 to about 90 weight percent of the second part, where the second part may be castor oil ([0039])), and the two-part polyurethane adhesive has at least some penetration into the membrane layer prior to curing ([0037]).
Dey does not teach that the sustainable reactive rheology modifier comprises beeswax.
Parker also relates to a two-part curable polyurethane adhesive composition ([0223] and [0227]), including a sustainable rheology modifier comprising beeswax ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sustainable rheology modifier of Dey to comprise the beeswax of Parker to improve moisture resistance (Parker, [0047]. Note that Dey is also concerned with preventing reaction between water and the adhesive composition components, Dey, [0062]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claims 7-8: the penetration into the membrane layer is at least 5% and at least 50% (Dey, [0115-0118]).
Claim 10: a feed carrier material (Dey, [0118], non-woven scrim layer).
Claim 11: a porous permeate carrier layer which is bonded with the two-component polyurethane adhesive (Dey, [0118], permeate spacer).
Claim 12: the first part has a viscosity of less than 100,000 cPs at 25°C (Dey, [0066], and Tables 2 and 4).
Claim 13: the first part has a viscosity of less than 30,000 cPs at 25°C (Dey, [0066], and Tables 2 and 4).
Claim 15: in the first part, the isocyanate reactive component is castor oil present in an amount of from 50 wt% to 95 wt% (Dey, [0069], the adhesive composition can contain about 10 to about 90 weight percent of the second part, where the second part may be castor oil ([0039])) and the sustainable reactive rheology modifier is beeswax present in an amount of from 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% (Parker, [0202-0203] and [0205]) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the amount of sustainable reactive rheology modifier in the first part of Dey and Parker based on a desired viscosity (Parker, [0228])).
Claim 16: the polyisocyanate comprises methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (Dey, [0027-0029]).
Claim 19: the separation apparatus is spiral wound membrane filter (Dey, [0002]).
Claim 20: membrane comprises two or three layers (Dey, [0118]).
Claim 25: the two-part polyurethane adhesive has an index of from 1.05 to 1.3 (Dey, [0068]).
Regarding Claim 22, Parker discloses the polyurethane adhesive composition of Claim 1, including that, based on the total weight of the first part, the beeswax is present in an amount of from 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% ([0202-0203] and [0205]), and the glycerol is present in an amount of from 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% ([0177]), except that the isocyanate reactive component comprises castor oil present in an amount of from 50 wt% to 95 wt%.
Dey teaches the isocyanate reactive component comprises castor oil present in an amount of from 50 wt% to 95 wt% ([0069], the adhesive composition can contain about 10 to about 90 weight percent of the second part, where the second part may be castor oil ([0039])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the isocyanate reactive component of Parker to comprise castor oil present in an amount of from 50 wt% to 95 wt%, as demonstrated by Dey, because Parker and Dey are concerned with isocyanate reactive components comprising plant-based oils (Dey, [0039] and Parker, [0030]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20160298009A1 (‘Dey’) and U.S. Publication US20110311833A1 (‘Parker’) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20200384420A1 (‘Smigelski’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Dey and Parker teaches the separation apparatus of Claim 6, including that the membrane comprises a polyamide layer ([0118], thin semi-permeable layer (AG LF series reverse osmosis membrane), except that the membrane comprises a polysulfone layer.
Smigelski also relates to a separation apparatus (abstract) comprising a polyurethane adhesive composition ([0029]), including that membrane comprises a polysulfone layer ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the membrane of Dey and Parker to comprise a polysulfone layer, as demonstrated by Smigelski, to serve as a backing material (Smigelski, [0032]) or support (Smigelski, [0020]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights