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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 7, it appears that 120 is used to identify canister 102.
In Fig. 8, 500 appears to be used to refer to the entire assembly shown, but the reference character 500 is also used to refer only to the straps.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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 1, the claim recites “the dispensing sub-system configured to fluidically couple the pre-pressurized canister to the valve sub-system” in lines 10-11. It is unclear how any part of the dispensing sub-system would be considered to couple the canister to the valve sub-system (see Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0093-0096 of the specification). According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim will be interpreted to read --configured to fluidically couple to the pre-pressurized canister via
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each claim is dependent upon a claim that recites “one or more low GWP propellants including at least one of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene” (see claims 1 and 7), and further recites the limitation “wherein the one or more low GWP propellants include the trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene”. It is unclear whether the underlined term “the” is intended to impact the scope of the claim, since it appears to imply that trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene is required by the parent claim. There is additional ambiguity based on the written description, which describes the use of trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene separately as a propellant (e.g., see Paragraph 0090) and as a flammability reducer added to a composition having a different propellant (e.g., see Paragraph 0038). Thus, it is not necessarily clear whether/how the instant claims further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which each depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeates et al. (US 2014/0275303).
Regarding claim 7, Yeates et al. disclose a pre-pressurized canister (Paragraph 0051) comprising: one or more polymeric materials (e.g., the polyurethane foam forming composition may include polyisocyanate, polyether polyol, and/or silicone surfactants; see Paragraphs 0063-0064 and Table 2) and one or more low global warming potential (GWP) propellants, the one or more low GWP propellants including at least one of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (all three alternatives are disclosed as suitable low GWP blowing agents/propellants; Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 8, Yeates et al. further disclose that the pre-pressurized canister is configured to couple to a dispensing sub-system, the dispensing sub-system configured to dispense the one or more polymeric materials contained within the pre-pressurized canister (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claims 9-10, Yeates et al. further disclose that the pre-pressurized canister includes between 3% to 50% and between 5% to 15% by weight propellant (e.g., the blowing agent, which also functions as a propellant, “is present in the one-component foam forming composition of the present invention in an amount from 10 to 30 wt. %.”; Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Yeates et al. further disclose that the one or more low GWP propellants include the trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 12, Yeates et al. further disclose that the one or more polymeric materials include at least polyurethane (the composition forms a polyurethane foam; see the Abstract). Examiner notes that at least a portion of the polymerization process may occur after dispensing in such an application, but that the invention of Yeates et al. appears to function in the same way as described in the instant invention (according to Examiner’s best understanding based on Paragraphs 0086-0092 of the specification). Furthermore, Yeates et al. additionally include silicone in the disclosed composition for use as a surfactant (Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Regarding claims 13-15, Yeates et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed chemical composition, as described above regarding claims 7 and 9-12.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeates et al. in view of Dean et al. (US 2010/0219204).
Regarding claim 1, Yeates et al. disclose a reactive polymer canister system comprising:
a pre-pressurized canister, the pre-pressurized canister being pre-filled with one or more polymeric materials and one or more low global warming potential (GWP) propellants, the one or more low GWP propellants including at least one of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (see above regarding the same limitation in claim 7); and
a dispensing sub-system comprising: a dispensing hose and a dispensing member, the dispensing member coupled to a portion of the dispensing hose, the dispensing member configured to dispense the one or more polymeric materials contained within the pre-pressurized canister (“The one-component foam forming composition may also be dispensed from a pressurized cylinder equipped with hose and wand assembly.”; Paragraph 0051).
Yeates et al. describe the canister system as being used to dispense a one-component polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0007), but are silent regarding the connection between the dispensing sub-system and the canister, and thus do not disclose a valve sub-system or any details regarding its connection to the dispensing sub-system.
Dean et al. disclose a system for dispensing a one-component polyurethane foam (see the Abstract) that includes a pre-pressurized canister (2; Paragraphs 0005, 0009), a valve sub-system (see Figs. 4-5), the valve sub-system including a dispensing valve (35; see also 56 in the embodiment of Figs. 6-10, and 82 in the embodiment of Fig. 11) configured to couple to a portion of the pre-pressurized canister (e.g., via 31 and 33 in Fig. 5), the valve sub-system including a valve control mechanism configured to regulate a pressure of the pre-pressurized canister to cause the pre-pressurized canister to release the one or more polymeric materials (e.g., valve 35 is operated as a selector to open/close canister; additionally, 31 may include sectioning valves to regulate flow between multiple containers; Paragraph 0027; see Figs. 4-5); and
a dispensing sub-system, the dispensing sub-system configured to fluidically couple to the pre-pressurized canister via the valve sub-system (see interpretation described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); Examiner notes that the claim may also be rejected without modification by considering elements 14, 31, and 33 to be a part of the dispensing sub-system), the dispensing sub-system comprising: a dispensing hose (10), the dispensing hose coupled to a portion of the dispensing valve (via 14); and a dispensing member (7, 8), the dispensing member coupled to a portion of the dispensing hose (e.g., see Figs. 2-5), the dispensing member configured to dispense the one or more polymeric materials contained within the pre-pressurized canister (Paragraphs 0022-0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the canister system of Yeates et al. with a valve sub-system, as taught by Dean et al., in order to enable controlled connection and dispensing from the canister via the dispensing sub-system. Since Yeates et al. is silent regarding this function, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, with Dean et al. providing a suitable example in accordance with methods well known in the art.
Regarding claims 2-3, Yeates et al. further disclose that the pre-pressurized canister includes between 3% to 50% and between 5% to 15% by weight propellant (e.g., the blowing agent, which also functions as a propellant, “is present in the one-component foam forming composition of the present invention in an amount from 10 to 30 wt. %.”; Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Yeates et al. further disclose that the one or more low GWP propellants include the trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Yeates et al. further disclose that the one or more polymeric materials include at least polyurethane (the composition forms a polyurethane foam; see the Abstract). Examiner notes that at least a portion of the polymerization process may occur after dispensing in such an application, but that the invention of Yeates et al. appears to function in the same way as described in the instant invention (according to Examiner’s best understanding based on Paragraphs 0086-0092 of the specification). Furthermore, Yeates et al. additionally include silicone in the disclosed composition for use as a surfactant (Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 6, the dispensing member of Dean et al. is taught to be configured to couple to a dispensing tip (7 couples to 4 and 5; Paragraph 0022; see Figs. 2-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Wuerch et al. (US 2014/0065432) and Peterson et al. (US 2021/0379226) respectively disclose examples of a chemical composition and a canister system relevant to the independent claims of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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 C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
March 6, 2026