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. DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 1 2/2 2 /202 5 . Currently claims 1- 9 are pending in the application ; with claim 9withdrawn from consideration. Election / Restriction Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1- 8 , with traverse, drawn to a method in the reply filed on 12 /2 2 /202 5 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the invention groups are interrelated, and the applicant disputes the examiner’s assertion that there is lack of unity of invention based on the fact that the special technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make contribution over the prior art. However, the Examiner takes the position that the restriction requirement is valid, as will be demonstrated in detail from the rejection section of this Office action, where it will be shown that the special technical features of the different group of claims is taught by the prior arts. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL. 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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness. 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. Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Lorenz et al. (US Patent Number 6,472,447 B1 ), hereafter, referred to as “ Lorenz ”, in view of Van der wal et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 20 1 1/02 13044 A1), hereafter, referred to as “ Van der wal ”. Regarding claim 1, Lorenz teaches a method for making a polymer polyol, comprising the reaction of i ) polyols having the relevant numbers of hydroxyl groups per molecule; ii) in-situ formed styrene based thermoplastic polymers that are insoluble in component i ); iii) a dispersion stabilizer and iv) the antisolvent ethanol or water . Lorenz describes in the “description of the invention ” to use (A) base polyols, (B) polymers comprising (1) styrene or (2) a mixture of styrene and at least one other ethylenically unsaturated monomer, and (C) a polymer containing mercaptan groups and/ or disulfide group-containing polymers that are compatible with the above components (A) and have an average of at least 0.5 mercaptan groups or at least one disulfide group per average molecular weight 500-100,000 ; 1 molecules and a viscosity 100-80,000 mPas (measured at a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius and a shear rate of 48/s according to DIN53019), wherein the above components (B) are present in an amount of 30 to 60 parts by weight, and the above components (C) are present in an amount of 1 to 6 parts by weight (these parts by weight are based on the total weight of the components (A), (B), and (C)) (Column 1, line 60 -Column 2, line 13). Lorenz also teaches a method for producing the polyol by disclosing that 1013.5g of polyols B (polyether polyols based on glycerol and prepared by addition of propylene oxide (83%) and ethylene oxide (17%), molecular weight: about 4,950, hydroxyl value: about 34) (column 7, line 15-18). Lorenz further teaches in example 3, 2,200 g polyol A, 21.45 g mercaptoacetic acid, 6.81 g adipic acid, 650 g toluene and 1.98 g 85% p- toluenesulfonic acid were initially introduced into the reaction vessel. Nitrogen was passed through the solution for ½ hr. The mixture was heated to a temperature of 139 °C to 141 °C for 13 hr using a water separator, and the toluene was then removed by applying a vacuum and heating at 110 °C. Viscosity: 2,990 mPa.s , (25° C., shear rate: 48/s); OH number: 26.5 mg KOH/g; acid number: 1.05 mg KOH/g. It is noted that Hydroxyl Number and Hydroxyl Equivalent Weight are both measurements of a polyol's reactivity used in stoichiometric calculations (e.g., in urethane production), with Hydroxyl Number representing concentration (mg KOH/g) and Hydroxyl Equivalent Weight representing the weight per mole of OH groups (g/eq). They are inversely related by the formula: Hydroxyl Equivalent Weight = 56100 / (Hydroxyl Number). Therefore, the Lorenz teaches the use of 250 to 6000 hydroxyl equivalent weight alcohols by teaching hydroxyl number of 34 ( hydroxyl equivalent wight 1650) and hydroxyl number 26.5 (hydroxyl equivalent wight 2117). It is also noted that the Vicat softening temperature of polystyrene typically ranges between 85 to105 °C, thereby within the claimed range. Additionally, Lorenz also teaches the use of ethanol (claim 5) and water (example 12). But Lorenz fails to explicitly teach the shearing of the heated and pressurized mixture to form a dispersion of droplets of the heat-softened thermoplastic polymer in a liquid, and cooling the dispersion of droplets to below the Vicat softening temperature of the thermoplastic polymer to solidify the droplets of the thermoplastic polymer to form particles thereof and form the polymer polyol. However, Van der wal teaches a melt dispersion process for making polymer polyols. Van der wal teaches that a way of dispersing the previously-formed polymer is to melt it, and then blend the molten polymer with the polyol under shear. The shearing action breaks the molten polymer into small droplets which become dispersed in the polyol phase. Upon cooling, a dispersion of polymer particles is formed (para. [0006]). Van der wal also teaches a device in which the molten polystyrene polymer can be sheared into droplets in the presence of the polyol and then maintained under agitation or shear until the dispersed droplets can be cooled and solidified (para. [0064]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Van der wal , and use a know n technique to shearing of the heated and pressurized mixture to form a dispersion of droplets of the heat-softened thermoplastic polymer in a liquid, and cooling the dispersion of droplets to solidify the droplets of the thermoplastic polymer to form particles (below its Vical softening temperature) thereof and form the polymer polyol; because that would allow to form and solidify the polymer polyols and separate it out from the solution mixture (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143) . Since both the reference deal with polymer polyols, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination. Regarding claim 2, Lorenz, in view of Can der wal teaches a method for making a polymer polyol, comprising (a) the reaction of i ) polyols having the relevant numbers of hydroxyl groups per molecule; ii) in-situ formed styrene based thermoplastic polymers that are insoluble in component i ); iii) a dispersion stabilizer and iv) the antisolvent ethanol or water; and (b) shearing of the mixture to form a dispersion of droplets of the polymer and (c) cooling to solidify the droplets. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the polymer polyol will depend on the composition of the ingredients. Therefore, the composition of the ingredients would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable , i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the mixture would comprises of 30 to 75 weight-% of i ), 20 to 55 weight-% of ii), 0.5 to 5 weight-% of iii) and 2 to 10 weight-% of iv), the weight percentages being based on the combined weights of i ), ii), iii) and iv); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 3, Lorenz, in view of Can der wal teaches a method for making a polymer polyol, comprising (a) the reaction of i ) polyols having the relevant numbers of hydroxyl groups per molecule; ii) in-situ formed styrene based thermoplastic polymers that are insoluble in component i ); iii) a dispersion stabilizer and iv) the antisolvent ethanol or water; and (b) shearing of the mixture to form a dispersion of droplets of the polymer and (c) cooling to solidify the droplets. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the solidified polymers would be separated and purified from the liquid mixture. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that separation process could be performed simultaneously with and/or after step (c) . The removing of antisolvent from the polymer polyol until the anti - solvent content of the polymer polyol is less than 0.5% by weight would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation based on the desire product specification. Regarding claim 4 , Lorenz, in view of Can der wal teaches a method for making a polymer polyol, comprising (a) the reaction of i ) polyols having the relevant numbers of hydroxyl groups per molecule; ii) in-situ formed styrene based thermoplastic polymers that are insoluble in component i ); iii) a dispersion stabilizer and iv) the antisolvent ethanol or water; and (b) shearing of the mixture to form a dispersion of droplets of the polymer and (c) cooling to solidify the droplets. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the polymer polyol will depend on the final composition of the product mixture. Therefore, the composition of the final composition of the mixture would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable , i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the final mixture, wherein after step (d) the polymer polyol contains 35 to 55% by weight of dispersed particles of the thermoplastic polymer; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 5, Lorenz teaches that the stabilizer includes a copolymer of (1) a branched polyol having a molecular weight of from 4000 to 20,000, at least one polymerizable ethylenically unsaturated group per molecule and from about 3 to about 8 hydroxyl groups per molecule with (2) styrene or a mixture of styrene and one or more other low molecular weight monomers ; by teaching a polymer containing mercaptan and/or disulfide groups, and has an average molecular weight of 500 to 100,000 (column 2, lines 1-4); also teaching a polymer with the average molecular weight of such polymers containing mercaptan groups is preferably 1,000 to 80,000 (column 3, lines 51-52) , and further teaching polyether polyols with a molecular weight of 500 to 6,000 and a hydroxyl functionality of 2 to 8 (column3, lines 6-8). Lorenz also teaches that p olyether polyols containing mercaptan groups and polyester polyols containing mercaptan groups which are most preferably employed as component (C), having a straight-chain, branched or cyclic alkylene radical having 1 to 20 carbon atom (column 4, lines 12-25). Lorenz further teaches that i t is also possible to carry out the polymerization of styrene or of styrene with other ethylenically unsaturated monomers, in the presence of component (C), the polymer containing mercapto groups and/or disulfide groups (column 5, lines 51-55) . It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the polymer polyol will depend on the stabilizer composition. Therefore, the composition of the stabilizer would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable , i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the stabilizer includes a copolymer of 10-40% branched polyol and 60-90% of styrene or a mixture of styrene and one or more other low molecular weight monomers ; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 6, Lorenz teaches to use water in the process (Example 12). Regarding claim 7, Lorenz teaches wherein component i ) is one or more polyether polyols (column 7, lines 10-22) Regarding claim 8, Lorenz teaches a process wherein component ii) is polystyrene (Example s 5, 7, 8, and 11) or a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer (Example 6). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central 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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742