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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “8 to 60 wt.%”, “31.15 to 91.35 wt.%” “0.15 to 0.35 wt.%”, “0.5 to 15 wt.%” and “ all wt.%s”. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence of more. For the purpose of further examination it is taken to read as “8 to 60 wt%”, “31.15 to 91.35 wt%” “0.15 to 0.35 wt.%”, “0.5 to 15 wt%” and “ all wt%s”.
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “0.2 to 1.5 wt.%”. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence of more. For the purpose of further examination it is taken to read as “0.2 to 1.5 wt%”.
Claim 8 recites “at least 0.2 wt.%”. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence of more. For the purpose of further examination it is taken to read as “at least 0.2 wt%”.
Claim 10 recites “8 to 60 wt.%”, “31.15 to 91.35 wt.%” “0.15 to 0.35 wt.%”, “0.05 to 13 wt.%” and “ all wt.%s”. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence of more. For the purpose of further examination it is taken to read as “8 to 60 wt%”, “31.15 to 91.35 wt%” “0.15 to 0.35 wt.%”, “0.05 to 13 wt%” and “ all wt%s”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of its dependence on Claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassini et al (US 20190375881 A1) in view of Hermann et al (US 20200377684 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-6: Grassini teaches a composition for making a polyurethane foam (abstract) comprising an A-side comprising a polyisocyanate and a B-side comprising a polyether polyol/(b)(ii), an autocatalytic polyol/(b)(i), and water (para 13). Grassini further teaches the polyisocyanate comprising of diphenylmethane diisocyanate (para 16) with an isocyanate index of 70 to 125 (para 17), overlapping the claimed range of 60 to 120, and the polyether polyol/(b)(ii) comprising of a polyether polyol with an aliphatic initiator including ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, butane diol, glycerol, or trimethylolpropane (para 23) and a functionality of 2 to 8 and a hydroxyl value of 5 to 100 with a calculated hydroxyl equivalent weight (56,100/hydroxyl value) of about 560 to 11200 (para 22) in an amount of 30 to 95 wt% (para 26). The autocatalytic polyol/(b)(i) comprises of at least one tertiary amine group, wherein the tertiary amine is aliphatic, with a functionality of 1 to 8, reading on the claimed limitation of 2 to 8 hydroxyl groups, and a hydroxyl value of 15 to 200 (para 27) present in an amount of 1 to 50 wt% (para 37). The water is present in an amount of 1 to 15 wt% (para 52). Grassini further teaches a polyol blend and polyisocyanate composition without a flame retardant (Table 1, Example 1). However, Grassini is silent on the composition comprising of a melt modifying catalyst in an amount of 0.15 to 0.35 wt%.
Hermann teaches a polyurethane foam made from a polyol component and an isocyanate component (para 6) comprising a potassium acetate catalyst (para 52) present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% (para 61). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane foam forming composition of Grassini with the potassium acetate of Hermann. Grassini and Hermann are analogous art as they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely the production of flexible polyurethane foams. Grassini teaches the composition comprising of one or more other non-tertiary amine catalysts (para 53). Hermann discloses that suitable catalysts catalyze the dimerization or trimerization of the isocyanate (para 41) and that metallic catalysts are selected to have no troublesome intrinsic odor and are essentially toxicologically safe resulting in foams that have lower catalyst-related emissions (para 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the foam forming composition of Grassini with potassium acetate to improve the trimerization of isocyanates while having minimal catalyst-related emissions.
The presence of the autocatalytic aliphatic polyether polyol and the melt modifying catalyst in the foam forming composition would lead to a polyurethane foam with fire-resistant properties.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8: Grassini further teaches the composition comprising a crosslinker in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% (para 38), an organosilicone surfactant (para 39) present in an amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% (para 40), and a tertiary amine catalyst present in an amount of 0.2 to 5 wt% (para 48).
Regarding Claim 9: Grassini further teaches a polyol blend and polyisocyanate composition comprising of all liquid components (Table 1, Examples 1-5).
Regarding Claim 10: Grassini teaches a polyurethane foam with a density of 35 to 70 kg/m3 (para 56) comprising an autocatalytic polyol comprising of at least one tertiary amine group, wherein the tertiary amine is aliphatic, with a functionality of 1 to 8 and a hydroxyl value of 15 to 200 (para 27) present in an amount of 1 to 50 wt% (para 37) and a polyether polyol with an aliphatic initiator, including ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, butane diol, glycerol, or trimethylolpropane (para 23), and a functionality of 2 to 8 and a hydroxyl value of 5 to 100 with a calculated hydroxyl equivalent weight of about 560 to 11200 (para 22) in an amount of 30 to 95 wt% (para 26). Grassini further teaches the foam comprising of a hydroxyl terminated crosslinker, such as glycerine, with a functionality of at least 3 and an equivalent weight of 30 to 125 present in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% (para 38), overlapping the claimed ranges. Grassini further teaches a polyurethane foam without a flame retardant (Table 1, Example 1).
Grassini does not expressly teach an amount of free hydroxyl groups of 0 to 66.7% of the total number of isocyanate groups in the foam. However this can be calculated from the isocyanate index. Isocyanate index is calculated by the ((actual amount of NCO used/ Theoretical amount of NCO required) X100). The amount of free hydroxyl groups in the polyurethane foam can be determined by subtracting the theoretical amount of NCO required from the actual amount of NCO used. If theoretical amount of NCO required is set to 100 than the actual amount of NCO used becomes the same as the isocyanate index. Therefore, the percentage of free hydroxyl groups based on the total number of isocyanate groups in the foam can be determined by the calculation (100 – Isocyanate index)/Isocyanate index. Grassini teaches an isocyanate index of 70 to 125 (para 17). The calculations based on this isocyanate range, while eliminating any isocyanate index that would result in a negative amount of free hydroxyl groups, would be (100-70)/70 to (100-100)/100 resulting in a range of free hydroxyl groups of 0% to about 43%, which overlap the claimed range. The isocyanate index range of 70 to 125 further reads on the claimed limitation of free hydroxyl groups in an amount of twice the amount of dimers and three times the amount of trimers in the foam. As the dimers and trimers present in the foam did not form a urethane bond with free hydroxyl groups it would lead to an excess of free hydroxyl groups in the foam of two for each dimer and three for each trimer unless there was an excess of free isocyanate for these free hydroxyl groups to bond to. Grassini teaches an isocyanate index range with a stochiometric excess of free hydroxyl groups therefore there must be twice or three times the amount of free hydroxyl groups to dimers or trimers, respectively, in the foam.
However, Grassini is silent on the composition comprising of a melt modifying catalyst in an amount of 0.15 to 0.35 wt%.
Hermann teaches a polyurethane foam made from a polyol component and an isocyanate component (para 6) comprising a potassium acetate catalyst (para 52) present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% (para 61). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane foam forming composition of Grassini with the potassium acetate of Hermann. Grassini teaches the composition comprising of one or more other non-tertiary amine catalysts (para 53). Hermann discloses that suitable catalysts catalyze the dimerization or trimerization of the isocyanate (para 41) and that metallic catalysts are selected to have no troublesome intrinsic odor and are essentially toxicologically safe resulting in foams that have lower catalyst-related emissions (para 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the foam forming composition of Grassini with potassium acetate to improve the trimerization of isocyanates while having minimal catalyst-related emissions.
The presence of the autocatalytic aliphatic polyether polyol and the melt modifying catalyst leads to a polyurethane foam with fire-resistant properties.
Regarding Claim 11: Modified Grassini teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as seen above. The references do not expressly teach the polyurethane foam passing Annexes 6-8 of UN/ECE 118.02. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the combination of an autocatalytic polyether polyol and a melt modifying catalyst, such as potassium acetate, in the polyol component of a foam forming composition enables the making of polyurethane foams that meet the tests prescribed by the ECE 118.02 regulations (page 6, lines 1-4). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. horizontal and vertical burning rates of less than 100 mm/min and a melting test rating of no ignition, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
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
Prosecution Insights