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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The filler component is misspelled as ‘filer’ (line 4, claim 1). Examiner interpreted ‘filer’ as ‘filler’ for the purpose of examination & compact prosecution. The ‘filler’ term in claims 2 – 24 will lack antecedent basis if the objection is not addressed by applicant. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1 – 1 3, 15, 16, 18 – 20 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mariano et al. (US 5,498,645 A) in view of Cordova (US 5,990,205 A) . Aqualon (Ashland Aqualon cellulose gum Product Data Sheet, 2015, p. 1-3) is cited as an evidentiary reference. Regarding claims 1 & 3, Mariano teaches a modeling dough comprising a resin, water, a gellant and filler (Abstract); said dough described as very ductile (i.e., stretchable). Suitable polymeric resins are taught to be poly(vinyl alcohol) resin, polysaccharide gums, cellulose gums (col. 3, lines 14-18), with an example of the latter provided as carboxymethyl cellulose, which may be used in conjunction with, or alternatively replace entirely, the polyvinyl alcohol (col. 4, lines 24-31). The modeling dough composition further comprises a gellant such as resorcinol, catechol, gallic acid, 2-4-dihydroxy benzoic acid and congo red (col. 3, lines 6-12). Although sodium tetraborate (compound containing boron) is also disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select any of the alternative gellants to the exclusion of sodium tetraborate based on their art-recognized suitability for their intended purpose. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. As such, Mariano teaches a stretch compound, comprising the claimed cellulose, filler and water, which does not require boron in any capacity. Mariano continues, disclosing the suitability of other water-soluble resins containing ether groups (col. 3, lines 25-28) and indicates that additives may be included to help plasticize the composition (col. 7, lines 27-28), however, Mariano fails to teach polyethylene oxide as required by the claim. In the same field of endeavor, Cordova teaches an inventive moldable, stretchable, bouncing composition for use in play activities (Abstract); said invention comprising gel-like polyvinyl alcohol. Cordova teaches said modeling dough may comprise a polyglycol such as polyethylene glycol (i.e., PEO) as both a plasticizer and an emollient (col. 7, lines 34-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mariano in view of Cordova, by including Cordova’s PEO in the modeling dough composition of Mariano, as Mariano expressly states plasticizing additives may be included in said composition. Modification of Mariano in view of Cordova as detailed above results in a moldable & stretchable play gel material comprising polyethylene oxide, carboxymethyl cellulose, filler and water, reading on limitations established by claims 1 & 3 . It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.06. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Regarding claim 2, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , the filler taught by Mariano may suitably be talc, mica or clay, with the preferred filler being disclosed as microspheres (col. 5 , lines 1 8 -2 1 ), which may be silica alloy or plastic microspheres (col. 6 , lines 13-21 ). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Regarding claim 4, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , Mariano suggests the use of Aqualon cellulose gum (col. 4, lines 24-25). Aqualon is the sodium salt of CMC, as evidenced by the Aqualon product data sheet (p. 1) . It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Regarding claim 5, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , Cordova discloses water contents of 50% - 65%, teaching any content below 50% results in loss of stretchability (col. 4, lines 18-21) . A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 6, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , Cordova teaches PEO as a plasticizer (col. 7, lines 34-36). Mariano includes various plasticizing compounds in amounts of up to 15 wt.% (col. 7, lines 28-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Cordova’s PEO in amounts of 15 wt.% or less when modifying Mariano, as the prior art recognizes this as a suitable amount for such additives used to achieve a similar effect. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 7, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , in a preferred embodiment, Mariano discloses the composition comprises 4% - 15% polymeric resin (col. 2, lines 30-31). An example of a suitable polymeric resin is taught to be cellulose gums (col. 3, lines 14-18), with an example thereof provided as carboxymethyl cellulose (col. 4, lines 23-24). Thus, the composition may comprise CMC in amounts of 4% - 15%, reading on the limitation established by the claim . A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claims 8 – 10, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed , Mariano teaches the composition comprises a preservative in amounts of 0.15% - 0.75% (col. 7, lines 45-51). Mariano provides guidance on appropriate pH levels of the composition, teaching preferable pH levels of 8.0 – 8.5 (col. 8, lines 2-5 (col. 8, lines 2-5). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Regarding claims 11 – 13, 15 & 16, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, Mariano teaches the inclusion of a humectant such as glycerin, liquid polyethylene glycol (i.e., low molecular weight PEG), and diethylene glycol (a low molecular weight PEG with 2 repeating units), in amounts of up to 15 wt.% (col. 7, lines 33-45). Cordova teaches the moldable & stretchable play gel material may further comprise a lubricant, such as mineral oil, in amounts of 2% or less (col. 4, lines 50-52) as well as a humectant (col. 8, claim 1 ). Regarding claim 18, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, Mariano teaches the inclusion of polyethylene glycol wax (col. 7, lines 3-5). Although not explicitly described as such, these represent polyglycols as recited in claim 18 and are capable of function ing as the claimed surfactant. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Regarding claim 19, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, PEG humectant in amounts of up to 15 wt.% as discussed above reads on polyglycol surfactant in overlapping amounts. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Regarding claim 20, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, Mariano teaches the inclusion of a fragrance (col. 8, lines 21-24) as well as a colorant (col. 7, line 51). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Regarding claim 24, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, said modification reads on all the limitations established by the independent base claim as well as all limitations established by claim 24. Chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mariano et al. (US 5,498,645 A) in view of Cordova (US 5,990,205 A) in further view of Bianco (US 6,348,534 B1) . Regarding claim 21, maintaining the modification of Mariano in view of Cordova previously detailed, Mariano & Cordova teach the inclusion of decorative additives as required by claim 20, but fail to teach decorative additives as required by claim 21. In the same field of endeavor, Bianco teaches a play toy material comprising water, PVA, a surfactant and a salt (Abstract). Bianco states their invention demonstrates remarkable stretchability in multiple directions many times its original length without breaking apart or deforming into a thin film. The components of the play material composition may be varied to provide a desired degree of extensibility (col. 4, lines 57-64). Bianco teaches the composition may further comprise a colorant, a fragrance, glitter, pearlescent agents & the like (col. 4, lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Mariano in view of Cordova by further incorporating glitter to provide a decorative aesthetic, as Bianco demonstrates this additive is suitable for use in the same capacity for similar compositions. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2825 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 EST . 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 Robert Jones can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7733 . 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. /CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762 /ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762