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 § 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 1-3, 5, 16, 18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013/127850 to Schleiermacher et al. in view U.S. Patent No. 5,500,176 to Parks et al.
As to the claims, Schleiermacher teaches a reaction system for preparing a
fiber reinforced composite, wherein the formulation comprises a polyurethane formed
from a poly-isocyanate component (which reads on the claimed "isocyanate component
A)") and a blend of at least three polyols (Abstract). With regard to the aforementioned blend of at least three polyols, Schleiermacher teaches:
A first polyol having a hydroxyl number from 200 to 500 meq/g (p. 5, lines 3-4).
A second polyol having a hydroxyl number from 800 to 1300 meq/g (p. 5, lines 5-
6).
A third polyol having a hydroxyl number from 350 to 700 meq/g (p. 5, lines 7-8).
In each case, the hydroxyl numbers of the three polyols taught by Schleiermacher encompass/overlap the claimed ranges of the claimed polyols claimed as "B1)" through "B3)," respectively, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. Schleiermacher further teaches that, with regard to the polyol blend, the first polyol is included within the range of 5 to 25 wt%, the second polyol is included within the range of 15 to 45 wt%, and the third polyol is included within the range of 5 to 50 wt% (p. 5, lines 12-16). In each case, the compositional ranges taught by Schleiermacher encompass/overlap the claimed ranges of the claimed polyols
claimed as "B1)" through "B3)," respectively, establishing prima facie cases of
obviousness.
Regarding the additional limitations on the claimed polyol components,
Schleiermacher teaches that the polyols are preferably polyether-polyols (p. 6, line 15),
and teaches that the polyether polyols may be preferably formed from propylene oxide
and ethylene oxide, in addition to other suitable oxides including butylene oxide, styrene
oxide, epichlorohydrin, etc. (p. 6, lines 27-29), and teaches that the polyether polyols
are formed from active hydrogen-containing initiator compounds including ethylene
glycol and propylene glycol (2-functional), trimethylolpropane (3-functional), and
pentaerythritol (4-functional), sucrose, resorcinol, catechol, or bisphenols (Pg. 7, lines 1-4).
The first, second, and third polyols of Schleiermacher therefore read on the
claimed polyols "B1)," "B2)," and "B3)," respectively. Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of catalysts (p. 10, lines 28-30), which read on the claimed "one or more catalysts B4)."
Schleiermacher further teaches the incorporation of 4.0% by weight of internal mold release agent (p. 11, line 6, Table 1), which reads on the claimed "internal release agent B2)."
Schleiermacher fails to teach the claimed internal mold release agents.
Parks teaches an isocyanate-reactive composition comprising an internal mold release
agent that contains 0.2 to 7.5 wt% of a fatty acid ester, corresponds to claimed B2b (2:31-33) and 2 to 7 wt% of a fatty acid, corresponds to B2a (2:1-49). The value of the IMR based on the amount of isocyanate-reactive component ranges from 2.2 to 14.5%. In the examples, 5 parts of oleic acid are used and 5 parts of fatty acid ester are used.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to substitute the IMR agent of with the Schleiermacher IMR of Parks within the claimed amounts to arrive at a composition that has excellent release from a variety of different mold surfaces (2:57-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 16, 18, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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 at 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 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 L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763