This invention relates to aerosol dispenser valves for products, and in particular to dispenser valves for moisture curable products such as foams.
Moisture curable products, such as moisture curable polyurethane foams, have found wide application in homes and businesses. These foams are excellent fillers and insulators. The foams are often packaged in aerosol cans with a polypropylene dispenser valve. A problem with these valves is that moisture can migrate through the valve and into the aerosol can. Once inside, the moisture cures the foam, and impairs the function of the valve. The problem is exacerbated if the can is not stored upright, so that the contents of the can surround the valve member. The migration path is shorter, and when the foam cures around the valve member it interferes with the operation of the valve, sealing it closed.
A preferred embodiment of the present invention is a dispenser valve for a moisture-curable foam made from a glass-filled polyolefin. In the preferred embodiment the polyolefin is a high density polyethylene. The polyethylene preferably has a glass content of between about 2% and about 40%, and more preferably between about 10% and about 30%, and most preferably between about 15% and about 25%. The valve member of the preferred embodiment is more resistant to failure from moisture infiltration than the polypropylene valve members of the prior art. The valve member of the preferred embodiment is less adhesive than the propylene valve members of the prior art, so that to the extent that the contents of the container does inadvertently cure inside the container, it is less likely to adhere to the valve member and interfere with the operation of the valve. Thus embodiments of valves in accordance with the principles of this invention can extend the shelf life of urethane foams and other moisture curable or moisture affected products dispensed from aerosol cans.
A preferred embodiment of dispenser valve constructed according to the principles of this invention is indicated generally as 20 in
In accordance with the principles of this invention, the valve member 22 is made from a glass-filled polyolefin. The inventors believe that glass-filled polyethylene is more resistant to adhesion than the polypropylene valve members of the prior art, or other suitable polymer materials.
The inventors have also discovered that chemically coupled glass-filled polyolefin, and specific glass-filled polyethylene is less adhesive than the valve members of the prior art, to the extent that the foam does inadvertently cure inside the container, it is less likely to adhere to the valve member and interfere with the operation of the valve.
The polyethylene is preferably a high density polyethylene. The polyethylene preferably has a glass content of between about 2% and about 40%, and more preferably between about 10% and about 30%, and most preferably between about 20% and about 30%.
Thus the valve member of the preferred embodiment are more resistant to moisture infiltration, and less adhesive to moisture curing foams, such as polyurethanes. Thus the valves constructed in accordance with the valve members of this invention are less likely fail, even when the cans on which they are used are not properly stored, and provide a greater product shelf life.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made of different plastics. The cans were stored upside down at ambient temperature and 90-100% relative humidity. Each week three cans of each type were examined and rated on whether the can was fully functional, stuck but functional, or stuck. Failure was determined when all three cans of the sample failed. The results of the test are given in Table 1.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Sixteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 120° at 80% relative humidity for 11 weeks. Cans were inspected at the end of 11 weeks to determine whether the valves were stuck or were functional. The results are given were given in Table 2.
This test shows that valves made of glass filled polyethylene (from 10% to 20%) had the lowest number of stuck valves.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with large valve parts made from different plastics. Twenty-two cans of each type were stored upside down at ambient with caps filled with water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, and it was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given in Table 3.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with small valve parts made from different plastics. Twenty-two cans of each type were stored upside down at ambient with caps filled with water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given in Table 4.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given were given in Table 5.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). 20% glass filled polyethylene was compared with impact modified propylene for two different neoprene seal materials. Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined when both valves tested stuck or failed. The results are given were given in Table 6.
This testing indicates that glass-filled polyethylene provides improved performance with different seal materials.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). 20% glass filled polyethylene was compared with propylene and with a conventional valve using a stick resistant coating on the seal. Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given were given in Table 7.
This testing indicates that glass-filled polyethylene continued to function after conventional valves and conventional valves with lubricated seals, failed.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with gun valve (vertically opened) parts made from different plastics. Sixteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 130° with caps full of water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, and its was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined by sticking or failure of both cans. The results are given were given in Table 8.
This testing shows the superiority of glass filled polyethylene in both ribbed and unribbed configurations.
Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with gun valve (vertically opened) parts made from different plastics. Twelve to Fourteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 130° with caps full of water. Cans of each type were tested periodically, and its was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined by sticking or failure of both cans. The results are given were given in Table 9 below, which shows that some standard valves first stuck after only six days and the standard valves were stuck after 11 days, as compared to the valves with 20% glass-filled Polyethylene valve components which were not stuck after 20 days of testing. All of the 20% glass-filled Polyethylene valve components performed longer than the standard components. The plastic used is a 703 CC chemically coupled 20% glass filled polyethylene available from RTP company, having an impact strength (notched) of about 2.5 ft. lbs./inch and a water absorption of about 0.04 percent.
In the testing conducted, a glass filled polyethylene was always the best performer, and only one other material—acetal—approached the performance of the glass-filled polyethylene in certain circumstances. Glass-filled polyethylene valve stems show surprisingly superior resistance to sticking (i.e. longer times to initial sticking, and longer times to valve failure) over valve stems of other materials in a variety environments, different valve sizes, and different sealing materials. Glass-filled polyethylene even showed superior resistance to sticking than conventional valves with available stick resistance coatings.
While the description of the preferred embodiment and the examples and tests focused primarily on moisture curable foams, and more specifically moisture curable polyurethane foams, the invention is not so limited and the valves and containers with valves of the present invention can be used with other moisture curable products that are dispensed from aerosol cans, and even with products that are not moisture curable, but adversely affected by moisture infiltration.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/189,656, filed Jul. 25, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,511,521, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,000, filed Sep. 15, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,984,834, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/627,850, filed Nov. 15, 2004, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/610,282, filed Sep. 16, 2004, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3830760 | Bengtson | Aug 1974 | A |
3954208 | Brill | May 1976 | A |
4216884 | Giuffredi | Aug 1980 | A |
4429814 | Scotti et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4437592 | Bon | Mar 1984 | A |
4558073 | Kluth et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4667855 | Holleran | May 1987 | A |
4852807 | Stoody | Aug 1989 | A |
4865351 | Smithson et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
5014887 | Kopp | May 1991 | A |
5456386 | Jesswein | Oct 1995 | A |
5553755 | Bonewald et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5687911 | Boakye-Danquah et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5836299 | Kwon | Nov 1998 | A |
5865351 | De Laforcade | Feb 1999 | A |
5894958 | De Laforcade | Apr 1999 | A |
5916953 | Jacoby et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5921447 | Barger et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5975356 | Yquel et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5988699 | Quandt | Nov 1999 | A |
6013691 | Braun et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6113070 | Holzboog | Sep 2000 | A |
6202899 | Lasserre et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6245415 | Keller et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6291580 | Kukkala et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6750265 | Pauls et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
7226553 | Jackson et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7227108 | Clothier et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7282170 | Dutmer et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7456242 | Smith et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7984834 | McBroom et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8511521 | McBroom et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
20020132950 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20040025852 | Kanekawa et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040104373 | Dutmer et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040260046 | Smith et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050011883 | Clothier et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20060065678 | McBroom et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 606 195 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1 577 229 | Sep 2009 | EP |
2 664 649 | Nov 2013 | EP |
9749974 | Dec 1997 | WO |
2005102867 | Nov 2005 | WO |
2011095499 | Aug 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Complaint,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Jul. 30, 2012, 9 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem Nv's Answer and Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 4, 2012, 9 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Momentive Performance Materials Inc.'s Answer to Clayton Corporation's Complaint,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 4, 2012, 9 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton Corporatin's Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 29, 2012, 5 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem Nv's Answer and First Amended Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Jul. 15, 2013, 13 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton Corporation's Answer to Defendants' First Amended Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Aug. 1, 2012, 6 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Against Defendant Momentive Performance Materials Inc. Under Local Patent R. 3-1,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Mar. 29, 2013, 10 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Against Defendants Lindal and Altachem Under Local Patent R. 3-1,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Mar. 29, 2013, 12 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Preliminary Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Apr. 26, 2013, 10 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Momentive Performance Materials, Inc.'s Preliminary Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Apr. 26, 2013, 12 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem Nv's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed May 17, 2013, 57 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, Excerpts of “Clayton Corporation's Answers to Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-12),” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 29, 2013, 10 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 9, 2013, 22 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 9, 2013, 20 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 24, 2013, 18 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Responsive Claim Construction Memorandum”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 24, 2013, 20 pages. |
De Beir, K., “Design of a 2-Component System and a Non-Adherent Tipping Valve Aerosol,” A Thesis Presented to the Department of Industrial Sciences of Hogeschool (University College) Gent, Jun. 2004, 150 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Altachem's Grounds for Opposition,” Filed Aug. 22, 2012, 24 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Opponent,” Filed Dec. 10, 2012, 4 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Proprietor,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Opponent,” Filed Jun. 29, 2013, 9 pages. |
Plast-O-Matic Valves, Inc., “Introduction to Plastic Valves,” accessed at http://www.plastomatic.com/intro-to-plastic-valves-ebook.pdf, Dated Apr. 20, 2003, 45 pages. |
ASTM International, “Designation D 5630-01—Standard Test Method for Ash Content in Plastics,” 2001, 5 pages. |
Basell Technology Company, Hostacom G2 U02 Product Sheet, Feb. 26, 2004, 2 pages. |
British Standard, “Plastics—Determination of Ash, Part 1: General Methods,” Jul. 1997, pp. 1-4. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North Amerida, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Ghent Courting Ruling for EP 1 789 343,” Issued Jun. 19, 2014, 33 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Certified Translation of Ghent Court Ruling for EP 1 789 343,” Case No. 4:13-cv-001349-AGF, Filed Jun. 19, 2014, 32 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Markman Order,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 30, 2014, 41 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Final Infringement Contentions Against Defendants Lindal and Altachem Under Local Patent R. 3-7,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 14 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Final Invalidity Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 62 pages. |
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Final Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 9 pages. |
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jun. 3, 2009, 2 pages. |
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jan. 7, 2011, 4 pages. |
De Schrijver, A., The Foam Manual, 2012, pp. 13-21 and 98-131, Kluwer Technische Boeken. |
European Search Opinion issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Aug. 5, 2008, 3 pages. |
Harper, C. A., Handbook of Plastics and Elastomers, 1975, pp. 1-96, 1-97, 1-100, 1-101, and 2-66 through 2-69, 1975, McGraw-Hill Book Company. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Mar. 20, 2007, 4 pages. |
International Search Report issued for European Patent 1 789 343 Bl, dated Feb. 16, 2007, 3 pages. |
Observations by Third Parties for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, filed Jun. 8, 2009, 4 pages. |
Observations by Third Parties for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, filed Dec. 4, 2009, 5 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Dec. 11, 2012, 4 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Reply of the Patent Proprietor to the Notice(s) of Opposition,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Translation of the Evidence During Opposition Procedure,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Feb. 21, 2014, 4 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Witness Statement of Jan De Strooper (including attachments),” Dec. 19, 2013, 29 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Apr. 8, 2014, 4 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Annex to the Communication,” Sep. 10, 2014, 8 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, Written Submission in Preparation to/during Oral Proceedings, Filed Dec. 23, 2014, 28 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, Written Submission in Preparation to/during Oral Proceedings, Filed Dec. 29, 2014, 5 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Information Regarding the Result of Oral Proceedings,” Jan. 29, 2015, 3 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Notice of Appeal,” Filed Feb. 13, 2015, 1 page. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Minutes of the Oral Proceedings (including Annexes),” Mar. 3, 2015, 19 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Interlocutory Decision in Opposition Proceedings (Art. 101(3)(a) and 106(2) EPC),” Mar. 3, 2015, 30 pages. |
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Annex to the Communication,” Mar. 3, 2015, 5 pages. |
PolyOne, “On Force(TM) LFT PE-33LGF/000 White,” Provisional Datasheet, Mar. 14, 2012, 1 page. |
RTP Company, “High Density Polyethylene (HDPE),” accessed from <http://www.rtpcompany.com/info/guide/descriptions/0700.htm> on Aug. 3, 2012, 1 page. |
RTP Company, Letter to Clayton Corporation Regarding the Composition of RTP 703 CC and RTP 199X121708, dated Oct. 10, 2013, 1 page. |
RTP Company, “RTP 703 CC HF High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Glass Fiber High Flow,” Product Data Sheet & General Processing Conditions, Mar. 3, 2011, 1 page. |
Seymour, R. B., et al., Structure-Property Relationships in Polymers, 1984, pp. 134-137, Plenum Press. |
Supplementary European Search Report issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jul. 29, 2008, 2 pages. |
Technical Drawing, Faigle for Altachem NV, Mar. 5, 2004, 1 page. |
Versuchsmusterprufbericht VM0281 Faigle to Altachem, dated Nov. 21, 2003, 1 page. |
Visit Report, Dietmar Murnig (Faigle) to Altachem NV, dated Feb. 17, 2004, 5 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130341552 A1 | Dec 2013 | US | |
20140166920 A2 | Jun 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60627850 | Nov 2004 | US | |
60610282 | Sep 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13189656 | Jul 2011 | US |
Child | 13971317 | US | |
Parent | 11228000 | Sep 2005 | US |
Child | 13189656 | US |