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 .
Status
Applicant’s response dated 23 September 2025 to the previous Office action dated 11 August 2025 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 1, 7-9, and 15-18 are pending in the application.
The objections to the drawings made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s submission of acceptable replacement sheets.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s cancelation of claim 3.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
Election/Restrictions
New claims 15-18 are drawn to unelected claims Group II, as that Group is set forth in the restriction requirement dated 15 May 2025. Applicant elected claims Group I in the reply filed on 26 June 2025.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 26 June 2025.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are under current consideration.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 September 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 4-8, filed 23 September 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Prissok (US 2016/0242371 A1; published 25 August 2016; of record) in view of Cuero Rengifo et al. (US 2016/0168311 A1; published 16 June 2016) and Levy (WO 89/12451 A1; published 28 December 1989) as discussed below.
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.
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) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prissok (US 2016/0242371 A1; published 25 August 2016; of record) in view of Cuero Rengifo et al. (US 2016/0168311 A1; published 16 June 2016) and Levy (WO 89/12451 A1; published 28 December 1989).
Prissok discloses a polyurethane foam comprising a substance having high water-holding capacity such as a superabsorbent polymer (abstract; paragraphs [0050]-[0051]) wherein the components are mixed together (paragraph [0049]) wherein the foam may further comprise fertilizer (i.e., a bioactive agent) (paragraph [0072]).
Prissok does not disclose that the polyurethane foam is a biofoam as claimed, or that the superabsorbent polymer is starch-g-poly(2-propenamide-co-2-propanoic acid) potassium salt as claimed.
Cuero Rengifo et al. discloses polyurethane biofoams (title) that are derived from inexpensive natural products (paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Levy discloses use of superabsorbent polymer (abstract) wherein an example of a superabsorbent polymer is starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propanoic acid, potassium salt) wherein superabsorbent polymers are generally nontoxic, biodegradable, and relatively inexpensive (page 15 third paragraph to page 16 second to last paragraph, and item 6 therein).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prissok, Cuero Rengifo et al., and Levy by making the composition of Prissok as discussed above wherein the polyurethane foam therein is biofoam as in Cuero Rengifo et al. and wherein the superabsorbent polymer therein is starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propanoic acid, potassium salt) as in Levy, with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to use a foam therein that is inexpensive and derived from natural products as suggested by Cuero Rengifo et al. given that Prissok teaches inclusion of a polyurethane foam, and to use a superabsorbent polymer that is generally nontoxic, biodegradable, and relatively inexpensive as suggested by Levy given that Prissok teaches inclusion of superabsorbent polymer.
Regarding claim 7, the components including the polyurethane foam material and the superabsorbent polymer material are mixed together according to Prissok, which is the same method for forming the claimed composition as disclosed in the instant specification, and since the superabsorbent polymer is entrapped in air spaces of the foam in the claimed composition, the superabsorbent polymer must be entrapped in air spaces of the foam in the composition of Prissok, and thus the composition of Prissok in view of Cuero Rengifo et al. and Levy, since the materials and methods are the same.
Regarding claims 8-9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Prissok as discussed above and to make the composition of Prissok in view of Cuero Rengifo et al. and Levy as discussed above wherein the composition further comprises fertilizer (i.e., a bioactive agent), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights