DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1/15/2018 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the original disclosure for a composition “having a melt flow index of 39.40gms/10min, as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1238 at a temperature of 200C under a load of 5kg for a duration of 10min.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
With regards to the rejection of claims 10, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, applicant submits the claims have been amended to recite “a melt flow index of 39.40gms/10min, as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1238 at a temperature of 200C under a load of 5kg for a duration of 10min.” Applicant argues said amendment is supported by the “report from Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology” that was submitted as part of the Declaration under 37 CFT 1.132 filed 11-June-2025. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as written description requires that applicant demonstrate the inventor had passion of the claimed invention at the time of filing; each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure (see MPEP 2163.05). Applicant’s argument with respect to the report from Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology fails to meet said requirement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,596,045; US 8,609,778, and US 20217/0298207 each teaches production of expandable polystyrene from a blend of recycled polystyrene foam and GPPS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The examiner acknowledges applicant requests and interview and has made several attempts to contact the examiner from an overseas phone number. In order to expedite prosecution and ease communication, applicant may request an interview using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Said form may be used to confirm dates and times for an interview in order to ensure the availability of all parties and may be used to request a Video Conferences to remove international calling restrictions. Applicant may also use the AIR form to authorize internet communication.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787