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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “where the acyclic pentane and the ether form a physical blowing agent mixture” in lines 1-2. This is unclear because claim 1 already recites “a physical blowing agent mixture that includes an acyclic pentane and an ether.” Therefore when the applicant recites “a physical blowing agent mixture” in claim 5, it is unclear whether this is a new mixture or the same mixture recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 5 has been construed as referring to the same mixture as follows: “The process of claim 1,
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the flame retardant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “The process of claim 13, wherein the foam-forming mixture includes a flame retardant [[is]] selected from the group consisting of…”
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532).
Combs teaches a method for producing closed-cell foam boards, the method comprising: providing an A-side reactant stream comprising polymeric MDI; providing a B-side reactant stream that includes an aromatic polyester polyol, a hydrocarbon blowing agent such as n-pentane or isopentane (i.e. acyclic pentanes), water, and other additives; and mixing the A-side and B-side reactant streams to produce a foam-forming composition (See [0001]; [0030]-[0060]; [0066]-[0072]). An ether such as dimethyl ether or methylal may be included with the blowing agent (See [0046]). Combs teaches that surfactants may be included (See [0062]) in amounts within the claimed range of 1-5 parts by weight (pbw) relative to 100 pbw polyol (See Table 1). For instance, Example 1 includes 2.4 pbw surfactant (as B 8465) per 100 pbw polyol. Combs teaches that flame retardants may be included (See [0061]; [0084]-[0086]) in amounts within the claimed range of 5-30 pbw per 100 pbw polyol (See Table 1). For instance, Example 1 includes 15 pbw flame retardant (as TEP) per 100 pbw polyol. Combs teaches that the B-side reactant stream may include water in amounts less than 1.0 wt% (See [0047]; [0060]). Combs teaches the inclusion of catalysts to promote reaction between polyols and isocyanates and trimerization of isocyanate groups into polyisocyanurate groups (See [0062]).
Regarding the density of the foam, Combs teaches foam density values which overlap the instantly claimed range (See [0042] with lower range endpoint of 1.6 lbs/ft3; [0051] with range of 1.6 to 1.85 lbs/ft3; Tables 1 and 2). When a claimed range overlaps a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding the instantly claimed index value, Combs also teaches index values which lie within the instantly claimed range (See [0015]; Tables 1 and 2).
Examiner notes that the method of Combs combines identical ingredients in the claimed amounts in the same manner as the instant invention, so it is reasonable to conclude that the resulting product would possess the same properties claimed such as density and index values.
Regarding the limitations “from about 12 to about 40 parts by weight of a physical blowing agent mixture”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include pentane and ether in such an amount. Combs teaches in paragraphs [0036], [0045], and [0051] that the foam forming mixture can contain up to 5% by weight of one or more hydrocarbon compounds with an LEL of less than 2% (which includes pentane). Combs also teaches hydrocarbons with an LEL greater than 2%, such as the dimethyl ether or methylal, being present in amounts of up to 2% by weight (See [0046]-[0047]; [0050]-[0051]). Combs goes on to teach that the foam forming mixture can contain 10% to 40% polyol by weight based on the total weight of the foam forming mixture (See [0057]). These teachings, when taken together, show that the physical blowing agent mixture may be present in amounts of up to 70 parts by weight hydrocarbon per 100 parts by weight polyol (10% polyol by total weight and 7% physical blowing agent mixture as 5% pentane and 2% ether by total weight). Many values in the ranges of Combs meet the instantly claimed amounts. For example, if the foam forming mixture contains 3% pentane by weight, 1% ether, and 20% polyol by weight, there are 20 parts by weight physical blowing agent mixture per 100 parts by weight polyol. The applicant has merely selected amounts of pentane and ether that lie squarely within the ranges taught by Combs. This selection of hydrocarbon compounds and their amounts for a foam-forming mixture is a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art and does not patentably distinguish the instant claims from the invention of Combs. Applicant has not demonstrated that the particular amounts of pentane and ether provide any new or unexpected result.
Regarding the molar percentage of ether based on the total moles of blowing agent mixture, Combs discloses ranges for the amounts of ether and pentane which satisfy the instantly claimed relationship. Specifically, Combs teaches that hydrocarbons such as dimethyl ether or methylal may be present in amounts up to 2% by weight (See [0046]; [0050]-[0051]) and that pentane may be present in amounts less than 5% by weight (See [0045]; [0049]-[0051]; [0058]). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed range. For example, 1% methylal by weight and 3% n-pentane lie within these ranges. For 100g total mass, 1g methylal and 3g n-pentane would be present. This equates to 0.0131 moles methylal (1g/76.1g/mol) and 0.0416 moles n-pentane (3g/72.15g/mol), which is about 24% methylal relative to the total moles of blowing agent mixture, which meets the claimed range of 7-30 mole%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art to use amounts within the ranges disclosed by Combs. Therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists since the ranges of Combs overlap the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Combs teaches index values which meet the instantly claimed range (See [0015]; [0042]; Tables 1 and 2). Furthermore, the method of Combs combines identical ingredients in the claimed amounts in the same manner as the instant invention, so it is reasonable to conclude that the resulting product would possess the same properties such as index.
Regarding claim 5, Combs discloses ranges for the amounts of ether and pentane which satisfy the instantly claimed relationship. In the example detailed above, 24 mol% methylal is present, which meets the claim.
Regarding claims 6-9, Combs discloses methylal (See [0046]), which is another name for dimethoxymethane.
Regarding claim 11, Combs teaches that the B-side reactant stream may include water in amounts less than 0.8 wt% (See [0047]; [0060]).
Claims 2-3, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gluck (US 4,572,865).
Combs teaches a method for producing foam boards, as detailed above. Combs teaches that the foam boards may be formed in a laminator (See [0072]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Combs does not expressly disclose the steps of exposing the reaction mixture to heat and depositing the reaction mixture on a facer.
Gluck teaches a method of making a foam board, the method comprising: conveying a facing material on a production line, depositing a foam-forming mixture on the facing material, and heating the foam-forming mixture and facing material to form a board (See Abstract; Figures; Summary of Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Gluck form the boards of Combs because Combs states that processes for producing foams are known to those skilled in the art and specifically points to the Gluck reference for such teachings (See [0066] of Combs).
Aside from the heating and lamination steps, all limitations of claim 13 are present in claim 1 and are taught by Combs, as detailed above. The heating and lamination steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing based on the teachings of Combs and Gluck, as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 3. Examiner notes that claim 13 recites slightly different ranges for water and density than claim 1, however such ranges still overlap the ranges of Combs.
Regarding claims 15-17 Combs discloses methylal (See [0046]), which is another name for dimethoxymethane.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sebestian (WO 2013/092584).
Combs teaches a method for producing foam boards including ethers such as dimethyl ether or dimethoxymethane as part of the blowing agent mixture, as detailed above. Combs does not expressly disclose dimethoxyethane as part of the blowing agent mixture.
Sebestian teaches methods for making polyurethane foam, wherein a blowing agent is used which may include dimethyl ether, dimethoxymethane, or dimethoxyethane (See [0009]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use dimethoxyethane in the blowing agent mixture of Combs in place of the dimethyl ether or dimethoxymethane. Since Sebestian teaches that all of these hydrocarbons were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for inclusion in a foam-forming mixture (See [0009]; [0027]), the substitution of one for another would have been obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brandt (US 2006/0179749).
Combs teaches a method for producing foam boards, as detailed above. Combs utilizes halogen-free flame retardants. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use halogenated phosphate flame retardants such as tri(monochloropropyl) phosphate and tri-2-chloroethyl phosphate because Brandt teaches that such flame retardants were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for use in polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foams (See [0042]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532) in view of Gluck (US 4,572,865) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brandt (US 2006/0179749).
Combs and Gluck combine to teach a method for producing foam boards, as detailed above. Combs utilizes halogen-free flame retardants. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use halogenated phosphate flame retardants such as tri(monochloropropyl) phosphate and tri-2-chloroethyl phosphate because Brandt teaches that such flame retardants were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for use in polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foams (See [0042]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2014/0066532) in view of Gluck (US 4,572,865) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sebestian (WO 2013/092584).
Combs and Gluck combine to teach a method for producing foam boards including ethers such as dimethyl ether or dimethoxymethane as part of the blowing agent mixture, as detailed above. Combs and Gluck do not expressly disclose dimethoxyethane as part of the blowing agent mixture.
Sebestian teaches methods for making polyurethane foam, wherein a blowing agent is used which may include dimethyl ether, dimethoxymethane, or dimethoxyethane (See [0009]; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use dimethoxyethane in the blowing agent mixture of Combs in place of the dimethyl ether or dimethoxymethane. Since Sebestian teaches that all of these hydrocarbons were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for inclusion in a foam-forming mixture (See [0009]; [0027]), the substitution of one for another would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746