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 § 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kelly (US Pub. No. 2002/0156141).
Claims 39 and 41: Kelly teaches a hydrophobic foam material (abstract) made of the reaction product of a hydrophobic polyol [0008, PO/EO polyether polyols are hydrophobic as they have a greater percentage of PO which controls the hydrophobicity, see 0027], a hydrophobic surfactant including polysiloxane-polyalkylene oxide [0036-0037], and an isocyanate including toluene diisocyanate (TDI) or MDI [0033]. Given that the hydrophobic surfactant is the same as claimed, it is inherent it is configured to “lower surface teansion…mining operation” as claimed. Kelly teaches that these three materials combined formed open cell foam structure [0032]. There is no coating.
Kelly does not teach the cellular density. However, the cellular density in foam materials is a result effective variable that varies based on the proportions and structure of the reaction materials. Kelly teaches that the foams have some air flow and density [0046]. This means that there is at least some number of pores per square inch. It was within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the optimal number of pores per inch. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Kelly does not teach explicitly that the solid-phase body has the intended use of “attracting a mineral particle of interest, including copper, from ore in an aqueous slurry in a mining operation to the collection surfaces”. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the materials are the same and, therefore, will function the same the same materials must have the same properties. Further, the Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Claims 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US Pub. No. 2002/0156141) as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of CN108192054B.
Claims40: Kelly does not teach the use of phenolic resin in their foam.
‘054B teaches that phenolic resin polyol in polyurethane foam materials improves performance of the material, is light weight, allows for high strength, and can completely or partially replace polyether (polyester) polyol. The substitution or supplementation of phenolic resin polyol in place of the polyester polyol reduces the cost of the material (Description).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include phenolic resin polyol to adjust the strength and temperature stability of the foam and also reduce the cost of forming the polyurethane foam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/20260have been fully considered but they are moot over grounds of new rejection.
Conclusion
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 ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773