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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 12/03/2025:
Claims 26-31 are pending.
Claims 1-25 are cancelled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olari et al.
(US20040089963), and further in view of Okuda et al. (US20060141159).
Regarding claim 26, Olari teaches a method of shaping an elastic or viscoelastic material
having a plurality of interstices (Abstract: The invention relates to a process for machining a
flexible foam), the method including the steps of:
shaping an elastic or viscoelastic material ([0014]) incorporating a solid, hard, and/or
stiff additive ([0012] the flexible foam is cooled by soaking the foam with a liquid and then
freezing the liquid. Typically, the liquid used is water, although other liquids having freezing
points within a practicable range can also be used. The flexible foam can be soaked with the
liquid in any suitable manner, such as by pouring or spraying the liquid onto the foam until the
foam is completely soaked, or by immersing the foam in a container of the liquid) using subtractive shaping methods so as to form a shaped elastic or viscoelastic material
incorporating the additive ([0014]); and
removing at least a portion of the incorporated additive from the shaped elastic or
viscoelastic material incorporating the additive ([0016]),
wherein: the subtractive shaping methods comprise at least computer numerical control
contour machining ([0014] The foam is machined after it has been temporarily hardened. Any
suitable machining equipment can be used, such as cutting, milling or drilling equipment.
Preferably, the hardened foam is cut using automated cutting equipment, and more preferably
using a CNC machine; Applicant’s disclosure recites “to be shaped using contour-shaping
machining methods including computer numerical control (CNC) milling” on pg. 1 under “Field
of Invention”. Therefore, a CNC machine is a form of contour-shaping, and CNC machines will
be interpreted as a type of computer numerical control contour machining).
While Olari fails to teach wherein the additive is not water and solidifies at a
temperature of greater than 0°C, Olari does teach that other liquids having freezing points
within a practical range can also be used ([0012]), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to
other liquids with freezing points within a practicable range.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to shaping porous materials with additives,
Okuda teaches the additive is not water ([0040]-[0041]) and solidifies at a temperature of
greater than 0°C ([0041] The perforating is carried out at a temperature that the soluble
polymer or paraffin impregnated into the porous structure retains its solid state. When a
substance that is solid at ordinary temperature (15 to 30.degree. C.)). A solidifying point that is
too low would increase the cost for cooling means such that solidification becomes expensive ([0088] If the solidifying point or melting point is too low, the cost of a cooling means for
solidification becomes expensive). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the additive of
Olari to not be water and to solidify at a temperature of greater than 0°C, as taught by Okuda,
since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use liquids with freezing points within a
practical range that do not increase the cost of cooling means. There would have been a
reasonable expectation of success for the paraffin of Okuda to infiltrate the foam of Olari as an
alternative to water, since both Olari and Okuda teach water may be used as an additive to
infiltrate the porous material, and Okura teaches polymers, including high-melting paraffins
that are in a solid state at ordinary temperatures, as one alternative to water as an additive (see [0089] of Okuda; see “Response to Arguments” in the Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025).
Regarding claim 27, Olari modified with Okuda teaches the method of claim 26. Further,
Olari teaches wherein the plurality of interstices is a network of voids (Abstract: The invention
relates to a process for machining a flexible foam. The flexible foam is treated to temporarily
harden the foam).
Regarding claim 28, Olari modified with Okuda teaches the method of claim 26. Further,
Olari teaches wherein the elastic or viscoelastic material is a foam (Abstract: The invention
relates to a process for machining a flexible foam. The flexible foam is treated to temporarily
harden the foam).
Regarding claim 29, Olari modified with Okuda teaches the method of claim 28. Further,
Olari teaches wherein the elastic or viscoelastic material is a foam (Abstract: The invention
relates to a process for machining a flexible foam. The flexible foam is treated to temporarily harden the foam).
Regarding claim 30, Olari modified with Okuda teaches the method of claim 26. While
Olari fails to teach the additive is selected from: a wax or wax- like compounds and mixtures
thereof; a crystalline solid; a supersaturated liquid; a liquid crystallising compound; a non-
Newtonian compound that solidifies;granules/powders/other solids which can flow into the
elastic or viscoelastic material;liquids and/or solids that can be hardened or could be arranged
and oriented to be stiffer by being subjected to conditions, Olari does teach that additives with
freezing points within a practical range can also be used ([0012]), prompting one of ordinary
skill to look to additives with freezing points within a practicable range.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to shaping porous materials with additives,
Okuda teaches the additive is a wax or wax- like compound ([0041] The soluble polymer or
paraffin is impregnated as a liquid (melt) or solution into the interior of the porous structure
including both surfaces of the porous resin base) that is a solid state at ordinary temperatures
(i.e. a freezing point with a practical range) ([0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the additive of Olari to be a wax or wax-
like compound, as taught by Okuda, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use
liquids with freezing points within a practical range that do not increase the cost of cooling
means.
Regarding claim 31, Olari modified with Okuda teaches the method of claim 30. As
noted in the rejection of claim 30 above, Okuda teaches wherein the additive is a wax or wax-
like compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the additive of Olari to be a wax or wax-
like compound, as taught by Okuda, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use
liquids with freezing points within a practical range that do not increase the cost of cooling
means.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and accompanying Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Declaration demonstrates that the combination of Olari and Okuda would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose (see pg. 2-3 of Remarks). The Declaration seeks to demonstrate that substituting the water additive disclosed by Olari for the paraffin additive disclosed by Okuda would leave the infiltrated foam inadequate for machining as taught by Olari, and causes swelling and deformation of the flexible foam as a resolute of exposure to the solvent taught by Okuda for depositing and removing the paraffin (see pg. 3 of Remarks).
However, Olari teaches that the foam is generally a low- or medium-density, open-celled polyurethane foam ([0010] The foam is flexible at room temperature (72.degree. F.). The foam is generally a low- or medium-density, open-celled foam. In a preferred embodiment, the flexible foam is a polyurethane foam), and the Declaration substitutes the water additive with a paraffin additive only for flexible open-cell polyurethane foam blocks with a particular density of ~34 kg/m3. Therefore, the Declaration fails to consider infiltrating an open-celled foam with various densities in the low- or medium-density range, as taught by Olari, with the paraffin additive.
Further, the Declaration describes experiments that treat the open-cell polyurethane foam blocks with either xylene or toluene, which are solvents that incorporate the paraffin additive during infiltration and removal (see Experiments 3 and 4 in the Declaration on pg. 6). The experiments demonstrate that the foams exhibit undesired swelling and deformation when exposed to xylene or toluene, and that using such solvents for paraffin infiltration and removal would render the foam inoperable for its intended use.
However, Okuda teaches that other solvents can be used to infiltrate and remove the additive, including water and alcohols ([0090]). Further, Okuda teaches the impregnating liquid may be either in the form of a solution or as polymers in a liquid state ([0091]), and that the paraffin material may be hexadecane, heptadecane, octadecane, nonadecane, icosane, henicosane, docosane, triacontane and heptacontane, or combinations thereof ([0101]).
Therefore, Olari and Okuda teach a combination of various foam densities, solvents, additive configurations, and types of paraffin additives such that the experiments of the Declaration using a single type of foam with a particular density, a single type of paraffin additive, and two solvents cannot adequately demonstrate that substituting the water additive of Olari with the paraffin additive of Okuda would render the foam inoperable for its intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights