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 § 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 7-12, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeates et al. (US 2014/0275303) in view of Cai et al. (US 2021/0340308).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Yeates et al. disclose a pre-pressurized canister (Paragraph 0051) comprising: one or more polymeric materials (a polyurethane foam forming composition including polyisocyanate; 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 are disclosed as suitable low GWP blowing agents/propellants, alone or as a mixture; Paragraphs 0030-0031). Yeates et al. teach this composition for use as insulation foam (Paragraph 0053).
Yeates et al. do not explicitly disclose that the one or more polymeric materials include at least one of polyisocyanurate, modified silicone (MS), silyl terminated polyether polymer, silylated polyurethane resin (SPUR), silane terminated polyurethane (STP), latex, or latex-acrylic.
Cai et al. teach a polyurethane foam forming composition containing polyisocyanate (Paragraph 0020), and further teach that such a composition may be modified to produce polyisocyanurate through the addition of catalysts (Paragraph 0077). Cai et al. teach these compositions for use as insulation foam (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the composition disclosed by Yeates et al. to include polyisocyanurate, as taught by Cai et al., since Cai et al. teach that this may be a suitable alternative composition for the same purpose. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making this modification with predictable results.
Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Yeates et al. are applicable among a variety of interchangeable materials suitable for a similar purpose (i.e., sprayable compositions used as adhesives, sealants, and insulating materials; see Paragraph 0006).
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 claim 9, Yeates et al. further disclose that the pre-pressurized canister includes between 3% to 50% 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 10, the range of propellant by weight disclosed by Yeates et al. (10% to 30%) overlaps with the claimed range of 5% to 15%. Cai additionally teaches that a blowing agent including 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1233zd) may be present in a similar composition in an amount of 2% to 10% by weight (Paragraphs 0058-0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Yeates-Cai with propellant in the claimed range, since Yeates et al. (and Cai et al.) teach an amount that would fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Yeates et al. further disclose that the one or more low GWP propellants include trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claims 16-17, Yeates-Cai in combination as described above regarding claims 7 and 9 discloses a chemical composition comprising: one or more polymeric materials including polyisocyanurate; and one or more low global warming potential (GWP) propellants including trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, the chemical composition including between 3% to 50% by weight propellant (see above regarding claims 7 and 9).
Regarding claims 21-22, Yeates-Cai in combination disclose the chemical composition of claim 16. Yeates et al. further discloses that the one or more low GWP propellants can also include carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen (“blowing agents suitable for the present invention include inert gases (e.g. nitrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide),[. . .] hydrochlorofluoroolefins (e.g. trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene) or a mixture thereof”; “One or more blowing agents may be used in the foam forming compositions of the present invention; the blowing agent may function as propellant too”; see Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Yeates et al. does not explicitly describe a mixture of propellants that includes carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the composition of Yeates et al. with a mixture of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene as propellants, since Yeates et al. lists all three among the elements that may be combined in accordance with the disclosed invention. Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by merely selecting from among the inert gases and hydrochlorofluoroolefins suggested by Yeates et al. based on desirable traits for a specific application (e.g., environmental considerations; see Paragraph 0031). Moreover, Examiner notes that Cai et al. also discloses a mixture of carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen with 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene in an amount of 2% - 10% by weight of the composition (see Paragraphs 0059-0061).
Regarding claim 23, Yeates-Cai in combination disclose the chemical composition of claim 21, but neither reference explicitly discloses that the carbon dioxide is present in an amount from 8% to 20% by weight. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the carbon dioxide in an amount from 8% to 20% by weight, given that both Yeates et al. and Cai et al. teach propellant mixtures including carbon dioxide, and considering the propellant proportions disclosed by both Yeates et al. (10-30%) and Cai et al. (2-10%).
Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed proportion of carbon dioxide (see: Paragraph 0032, which appears to describe the claimed range as an amount of gas propellant generally, not specifically the amount of carbon dioxide in a mixture of propellants including trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene; Paragraphs 00111-00115, which provide an example formulation having only 6% CO2; and Paragraph 00120, which provides a broader range of 1% to 20%), and it appears that the composition of the combined invention would work appropriately if composed of a material mixture with the claimed proportion.
Claims 13-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeates et al. (US 2014/0275303).
Regarding claims 13-15, Yeates et al. disclose a chemical composition comprising: one or more polymeric materials (e.g., polyisocyanate and a polyol blend, for forming a polyurethane foam; see Paragraphs 0007-0010); and one or more low global warming potential (GWP) propellants, the one or more low GWP propellants including carbon dioxide and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (“blowing agents suitable for the present invention include inert gases (e.g. nitrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide),[. . .] hydrochlorofluoroolefins (e.g. trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene) or a mixture thereof”; “One or more blowing agents may be used in the foam forming compositions of the present invention; the blowing agent may function as propellant too”; see Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Yeates et al. does not explicitly describe a mixture of propellants that includes both carbon dioxide and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the composition of Yeates et al. with a mixture of carbon dioxide and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene as propellants, since Yeates et al. lists both among the elements that may be combined in accordance with the disclosed invention. Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by merely selecting from among the inert gases and hydrochlorofluoroolefins suggested by Yeates et al. based on desirable traits for a specific application (e.g., environmental considerations; see Paragraph 0031). Moreover, Examiner notes that Cai et al. also discloses a mixture of carbon dioxide with 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene in an amount of 2% - 10% by weight of the composition (see Paragraphs 0059-0061).
Yeates et al. further disclose that the invention may be embodied as a “one-component polyurethane foam forming composition” having “about 10 to about 30% by weight of a blowing agent” (Paragraph 0007), or as a “two-component polyurethane foam forming composition” having an "A"-side comprising “polyisocyanate; and about 5 to about 15% by weight of a blowing agent”; Paragraph 0010). Thus, the one-component embodiment includes multiple polymeric materials and a propellant range within the range claimed in claim 13, and the “A-side” of the two-component embodiment discloses a polymeric material (polyisocyanate) and a propellant range matching the range claimed in claim 14.
Yeates et al. further disclose that the polymeric materials include polyurethane (the components form a polyurethane foam; Paragraph 0026) and silicone (as a surfactant; e.g., see Example 2, Paragraphs 0063-0066), thus satisfying the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Yeates et al. does not explicitly disclose that the carbon dioxide is present in an amount from 8% to 20% by weight. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the carbon dioxide in an amount within the claimed range, since Yeates et al. teach an overall propellant amount in an overlapping range, and Applicant has placed no criticality on the proportion of carbon dioxide, as described above regarding claim 23.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeates et al. in view of Cabrera (US 2011/0079663).
Yeates et al. disclose a chemical composition comprising: one or more polymeric materials; and one or more low global warming potential (GWP) propellants including trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, the chemical composition including between 3% to 50% by weight propellant, as described above regarding claims 7 and 9. Yeates et al. disclose this composition as a sprayable polyurethane foam formulation that may be used as an adhesive (Paragraph 0006), but do not explicitly disclose that the one or more polymeric materials include at least one of polyisocyanurate, modified silicone (MS), silyl terminated polyether polymer, silylated polyurethane resin (SPUR), silane terminated polyurethane (STP), latex, or latex-acrylic.
Cabrera teach a “sprayable adhesive composition compris[ing] a silyl terminated elastomeric adhesive and a propellant”, wherein the adhesive is a silyl terminated polyether or a silyl terminated polyurethane (Paragraph 0019). Cabrera further teach that the composition “comprises 50 to 80% by weight silyl terminated elastomeric adhesive [. . .], based on the total weight of the silyl terminated elastomeric adhesive and the propellant” (Paragraph 0020; thus, the propellant comprises 20 to 50% by weight of the composition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the composition of Yeates et al. to have one or more polymeric materials including: modified silicone (MS) or silyl terminated polyether polymer (as required by claim 18); or silylated polyurethane resin (SPUR) or silane terminated polyurethane (STP) (as required by claim 19) as taught by Cabrera, as an alternative adhesive material. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making such a modification with predictable results, especially since Cabrera teach that the described composition may include any propellant compatible with the adhesive material (Paragraph 0021).
Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Yeates et al. are applicable among a variety of interchangeable materials suitable for a similar purpose (i.e., sprayable compositions used as adhesives, sealants, and insulating materials; see Paragraph 0006).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeates et al. in view of Hoagland et al. (US 8,701,945).
As described above regarding claims 16 and 18-19, Yeates et al. disclose a composition having all of the features of claim 16 except the one or more polymeric materials is not explicitly disclosed to include at least one of polyisocyanurate, modified silicone (MS), silyl terminated polyether polymer, silylated polyurethane resin (SPUR), silane terminated polyurethane (STP), latex, or latex-acrylic. Yeates et al. disclose this composition to be used for dispensing a polyurethane foam from an aerosol can or pressurized cylinder (Paragraph 0014).
Hoagland et al. teaches that such a dispenser can be used with compositions comprising “a matrix that forms a polyurethane polymer” or “a latex matrix material” (Col. 3, lines 18-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the composition of Yeates et al. to have one or more polymeric materials including latex, since Hoagland et al. teach that polyurethane-based formulations and latex-based formulations can be substituted for the same purpose (i.e., to be dispensed from a pressurized can to create a foam).
Additionally, the court has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 1255 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Yeates et al. are applicable among a variety of interchangeable materials suitable for a similar purpose (i.e., sprayable compositions used as adhesives, sealants, and insulating materials; see Paragraph 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 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. The amendment dated 7/10/2026 narrows the scope of the claimed invention such that the Yeates reference does not explicitly disclose the required materials, but upon further search and consideration necessitated by the amendment, the Cai reference was found to teach a modification that renders the claimed invention obvious when combined with Yeates. Examiner additionally notes that, as described in the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant does not appear to place criticality on any of the recited polymeric materials (the instant specification only mentions the recited materials once; see Paragraph 0089, stating that the “one or more polymeric materials may include any polymeric material”). Thus, the recited polymeric materials are considered to be interchangeable depending on a particular intended use.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Yeates discloses carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (R- 1233zd) only as alternative blowing agents” (Remarks, Page 12). Examiner disagrees, since Yeates discloses the recited items followed by “or a mixture thereof” (Paragraph 0030), in much the same way as described in Paragraph 0090 of the instant specification (listing the recited items followed by “or a combination thereof”), which is cited as support for the amendment (Remarks, Page 11, under “II. Independent Claim 13”). It is noted that Applicant additionally cites Paragraphs 0083-0084, which describe trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene as a flammability reducer additive, and thus it is not described as a propellant. Nevertheless, claim 13 above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as an obvious modification in light of the disclosure in Yeates that the propellants may be used as a mixture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of compositions having various features relevant to the claims of the instant application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights