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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 13, in the reply filed on 17 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the combined limitations of “with the proviso that at least one of the radicals R1, R2 and R3 is an alkoxy radical” and “with the proviso that at least one of the radicals R1, R2 and R3 is a methoxy or ethoxy radical” is confusing. It is unclear if a single methoxy or ethoxy radical satisfies both of these limitations (since methoxy and ethoxy radicals are alkoxy radicals), or rather, if these limitations require at least one radical which is an alkoxy radical and another radical which is a methoxy or ethoxy radical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laas’450 (US 2017/0121450 A1) in view of Laas’962 (US 2007/0104962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Laas’450 teaches a hydrophilic polyisocyanate composition comprising a polyisocyanate component A, the polyisocyanate component A consists of at least one polyisocyanate having silane and thioallophanate structures of the general formula (I) of claim 1, in which in which R1, R2 and R3 are identical or different radicals and are each a saturated or unsaturated, linear or branched, aliphatic or cycloaliphatic or an optionally substituted aromatic or araliphatic radical having up to 18 carbon atoms, which may optionally contain up to 3 heteroatoms from the series of oxygen, sulfur and nitrogen, X is a linear or branched organic radical having at least 2 carbon atoms, Y is a linear or branched, aliphatic or cycloaliphatic, an araliphatic or aromatic radical having up to 18 carbon atoms and n is an integer from 1 to 20 (Abstract; paragraphs 2, 19, 70 and 75).
Claim 1 differs from Laas’450 in that:
i. Laas’450 does not teach the composition comprises an emulsifier component B, and the emulsifier component B) comprises at least one ionic and/or nonionic emulsifier.
(i) Laas’450 is directed to a crosslinker component in polyurethane compositions including binders in aqueous solution or dispersion (paragraph 70). In related polyisocyanate crosslinker art, Laas’962 provides aqueous emulsion polyisocyanate compositions mixed with an ionic and/or nonionic emulsifier to stabilize the compositions over a prolonged period (paragraphs 43-44). Laas’962 also teaches such mixtures are useful for binders in aqueous solution or dispersion (paragraphs 86-87). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Laas’450 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stabilize the composition of Laas’450 or to provide useful stabilized aqueous emulsion compositions for binder applications, as suggested by the teachings of Laas’962.
Regarding claims 2-5, Laas’450 clearly teaches these additional limitations (paragraphs 24-29, 32, 38 and 62).
Regarding claims 6-7, Laas’450 teaches that the polyisocyanate component may be given hydrophilic modification by known methods (paragraph 70). Laas’962 was applied above for suggesting the additional claimed emulsifier component. Laas’962 further teaches hydrophilic treatment of polyisocyanate crosslinker components to provide an emulsifier therefor (paragraphs 45-50 and 56-58). In one embodiment, Laas’962 forms a suitable emulsifier by reacting the polyisocyanate crosslinker component with a hydrophilic polyether alcohol comprising a polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether alcohol containing an average of 5 to 50 ethylene oxide units (paragraphs 45-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified composition of Laas’450 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the polyisocyanate component of Laas’450 as suggested by the above noted teachings of Laas’450 and Laas’962 to provide a suitable emulsifier as suggested by the teachings of Laas’962.
Regarding claims 8-9, in another embodiment, Laas’962 forms a suitable emulsifier by reacting the polyisocyanate crosslinker component with an aminosulfonic acid including acids recited in claim 9 (paragraph 56-58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified composition of Laas’450 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the polyisocyanate component of Laas’450 as suggested by the above noted teachings of Laas’450 and Laas’962 to provide a suitable emulsifier as suggested by the teachings of Laas’962.
Regarding claim 13, Laas’450 clearly teaches this additional limitation (paragraph 70).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laas’450 in view of Laas’962 as applied to claims 1-9 and 13 above, and further in view of Laas’574 (US 2018/0155574 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Laas’962 was applied above for suggesting suitable emulsifiers in the composition of Laas’450. In one embodiment, Laas’962 suggests alkylphenol polyglycol ether phosphates and phosphonates, fatty alcohol polyglycol ether phosphates and phosphonates, alkylphenol polyglycol ether sulfate or fatty alcohol polyglycol ether sulfate (paragraph 59). While Laas’962 does not indicate such emulsifiers are provided as alkali metal or ammonium salts, it is known to provide such emulsifiers for polyisocyanates as the claimed salts. See Laas’574 (paragraphs 2-3, 24 and 40-41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified composition of Laas’450 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a suitable emulsifier as suggested by the above noted teachings of Laas’962 and Laas’574.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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 A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745