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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all pending claims are directed toward a product or process of manufacturing the product. This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature of a foam-forming composition does not make a contribution over the cited prior art, and thus the unity requirement is not satisfied. Since the claims do not satisfy the unity of invention requirement, the restriction is proper. Applicant’s request that the Examiner provide another method to make the product as claimed is misplaced; the application is a 371 application and treated under PCT practice. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 8-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/3/26. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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(s) 1, 3, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2010180369 by Yano et al . Yano describes a polyurethane foam formulation. Regarding claim 1, Yano describes a combination of “ a polyol, an isocyanate, a foaming agent …and an additive including volatile silicone” (translation p.3 penultimate paragraph). The polyol reads on the instant isocyanate reactive compound, the isocyanate is a polyisocyanate (p.4 paragraph 2-4) , same as instant, and the foaming agent reads on the instant foaming agent (p.4 paragraph 5). Yano exemplifies a linear type volatile silicone in which caprylmethicone (C 8 H 17 ) is the R group equivalent to R2 in the instant formula, where the other functionalities are methyl (translation p.4 paragraph 1 , Table 1 Example 8 with additive B4 ). This meets the instant liquid siloxane. Although Yano does not specifically use the words “nucleating additive” to describe his volatile siloxane, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I ) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke , 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Furthermore Yano does emphasize the effect of finer and more uniform cells, which is an effect of nucleating additives (Yano p.3 final paragraph). Since Yano describes the presence of a chemical with the instantly claimed structure and its same effect, it meets the “nucleating additive” aspect of the claim. Regarding claim 3, Yano describes 0.5-3 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyol (isocyanate reactive compound) (p.4 paragraph 2). Prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity (see MPEP section 2131.03). Regarding claim 4, Yano describes 1-5 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the polyol (isocyanate reactive compound) (p.3 paragraph 5). Regarding claim 7, Yano describes the presence of for example a catalyst and cell stabilizer, silicone polyether copolymer , which reads on instant surfactant (Example 8) . 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010180369 by Yano et al . Yano is described above. Regarding claim 2, Yano describes cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane, dichloromethane (p.3 paragraph 5). Regarding claim 5, Yano describes cyclopentane as a possible blowing agent (p.3 paragraph 5). For example, when cyclopentane is used in place of water as the blowing agent in Example 8, the molar ratio of silicone additive B4 (MW 334.72) to cyclopentane (MW 70.13) is 1:15.5. Thus Yano’s teaching overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Yano describes values overlapping with the claimed range. Regarding claim 7, in addition to the 102-qualifying additives rejected above, Yano also describes specific physical foaming agents (p.3 paragraph 5) where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to use two for the same purpose, reading on the instant “additional physical blowing agent”. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Also, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) . Yano also describes the option of adding flame retardants and other additives (p.4 paragraph 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add these to Yano’s foam because he describes them in embodiments. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010180369 by Yano et al in view of US 4197372 by Hostettler et al . Yano is described above. Regarding claim 6, Yano describes reacting polyol and isocyanate (p.2 penultimate paragraph, p.4 paragraph 4), but is silent as to the preferred isocyanate index. Hostettler describes a polyurethane foam. Hostettler describes a preferred isocyanate index of 100-150 in an embodiment and states that when the index is 100 or more, all or substantially all of the reactive end groups participate in the reaction resulting in a final product which is highly resistant to hydrolytic attack (col 7 ln 39-46). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add the polyol and isocyanate of Yano in such a ratio such that an isocyanate index of 100-150 is achieved so that the final product is resistant to hydrolytic attack. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7154 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8am-3:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721302 . 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. /CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766