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 .
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 6 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation "p has an average value of 0 to 30", and the claim also recites "especially 2 to 30" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hager et al (US 2013/0079429 A1) in view of Gunther et al (US 2018/0194889 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-6: Hager teaches a method making a polyurethane foam (para 19) comprising reacting a mixture comprising an isocyanate component, an isocyanate reactive component/polyol mixture (para 20), comprising of polyether polyols B2 and B3 (para 22 and 23), a catalyst, a surfactant, and a blowing agent (para 25) and then curing the mixture (para 73). Hager teaches polyol B2 (reading on claimed polyol A1) present in an amount of 15 to 70wt% of the total polyol mixture (para 22) with a functionality of 2 to 4 (para 53), a hydroxyl number of 35 to 170 mg KOH/g (para 54), and a random EO/PO copolymer (para 56) with an oxyethylene content of 50 to 85% (para 55). The number average molecular weight can be determined by the calculation [56100 * functionality/hydroxyl number] and is about 660 (56100*2/170) to 6400 (56100*4/35), overlapping the claimed range. Hager further teaches polyether polyol B3 (reading on claimed polyol A2) present in an amount of 10 to 70 wt%, preferably 20 to 50% of the total polyol mixture (para 23) with a functionality of 2 to 4 (para 58), a hydroxyl number of 47 to 300 mg KOH/g (para 23), and a random or block EO/PO copolymer (para 60) with an oxyethylene content of at least 5% and less than 35% (para 59). Hager teaches the blowing agent comprising of water present in an amount of 0.75 to 7wt% based on the total weight of the polyol mixture (para 69). Hager further teaches the isocyanate component comprising of 100% toluene diisocyanate (para 82, Table 2A) with an isocyanate index of 60 to 125 (para 42). Hager further teaches the catalyst comprising a polyurethane catalyst (para 71) present in an amount of 0.05 to 3 parts per 100 parts of the polyol mixture which reads on a catalytically effective amount. A catalytically effective amount is interpreted as a tertiary amine and amidine catalysts in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts or a tin catalyst present in an amount of 0.01 to 1 parts (US 20250368771 A1 para 39). Hager teaches the surfactant comprising of a polyether polysiloxane copolymer present in an amount of 0.1 to 4 parts per 100 parts of polyol mixture (para 70). However, Hager is silent on the surfactant having the structure of formula I.
Gunther teaches a polyether polysiloxane copolymer of formula IX (para 198),
PNG
media_image1.png
158
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein [a]/x is 1 to 300 (para 200), [b]/y is 1 to 50 (para 201), [c] is preferably 0 (para 202), [d] is preferably 0 (para 203), [R] is a methyl radical (para 205), and [R2] is a linear, cyclic or branched, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbyl with 1 to 20 carbons including methyl (para 205-206). [R1]/Y is (para 207),
PNG
media_image2.png
134
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein [x]/e is 1 to 50 (para 209), [y]/p is 1 to 50 (para 211), [R’] is an alkyl or aryl with 1 to 10 carbons (para 213), and [R”] is an alkyl group with 1 to 4 carbons or C(O)R’’’ wherein [R’’’] is an alkyl radical (para 214). Gunther and Hager are analogous art as they are directed towards the same field of endeavor namely the production of polyurethane foams with polyether polysiloxane surfactants. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the siloxane surfactant of Hager with the siloxane surfactant of Gunther. Gunther discloses that siloxanes influence the foam properties of polyurethane foams and can be used as foam stabilizers (para 196-197). Hager disclose that silicone surfactants help stabilize the foam until it cures (para 70). The siloxanes of Gunther and Hager have similar structures and the same purpose in the production of polyurethane foams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the substitution to stabilize the foam during production of the polyurethane foam leading to a foam with more uniform cells.
Regarding Claim 7: Gunter teaches the TDI comprising of 80wt% of the 2,4-isomer and 20wt% of the 2,6-isomer (para 82).
Regarding Claim 8: Gunter teaches a polyurethane foam (para 19).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J BELUNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571) 272-1197. 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.
/T.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
