DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitations of previously presented claim 2. Claim 2 is cancelled.
No new prior art is used to reject previously rejected claims. For this reason, it is proper to make the present action FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (KR 2018-0009272) and further in view of Juhas (US 3,775,350). The discussion in paragraphs 11-19 of the Non-Final rejection mailed on 12/19/2025 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (KR 2018-0009272) in view of Juhas (US 3,775,350). and further in view of JP 2006-017983. The discussion in paragraphs 20-23 of the Non-Final rejection mailed on 12/19/2025 is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3/16/2026, with regards to the previously presented rejection of claim 1 over Liang et al. (US 2021/0009805) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment made to claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 over Liang et al. (US 2021/0009805) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed on 3/16/2026, with regards to the rejections over Na et al. (KR 2018-0009272) in view of Juhas (US 3,775,350) and/or Na et al. (KR 2018-0009272) in view of Juhas (US 3,775,350) and JP 2006-017983 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the mechanisms of blowing agents on page 5, stating that different mechanisms “can affect cell structure and density.”
This is not persuasive.
The rejection establishes that Na teaches the same amount of blowing agent recited in the instant claims, and further expressly states that the amount of blowing agent adjusts the density of the foam. Based on this teaching, and given that the amount of blowing agent in the polyurethane composition of Na et al. falls within the range of instant claim 7, the foams of Na et al. will necessarily have a density which meets the instant claims, including instant claims 1 and 5. Additionally, Applicants did not invent how to produce foams of a particular density. The amount of foaming agent in Na meets the instant claims, and Na specifically states that this amount is adjusted to give a desired density. Given the totality of the disclosure within Na, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily produce foams of a density which meets the instant claims. Applicants have provided no evidence which demonstrates the contrary.
Applicant has provided no evidence in support of the argument that the foams of Na do not meet the instantly claimed density. Applicant states that blowing agents can affect cell density, but provides no evidence in support of the contentions being made in the Remarks filed on 3/16/2026. As stated in MPEP 2145, “arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).”
The Examiner does not state that the claimed density is “arbitrary.” The rejection establishes that the prior art teaches the same amounts of the same components, and that the blowing agent determines the final density of the foam, meaning that since the same amount of blowing agent is used, the density of the disclosed prior art foams will meet the instantly claimed density. Applicants have provided no evidence which demonstrates the contrary.
Furthermore, the data cited to by Applicants does not show what occurs above a density of 35 kg/m3. If Applicants are attempting to establish criticality or unexpected results, the data cited to by Applicants (1) is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as required by MPEP 716.02(d) and (2) does not show a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range, which is required by MPEP 716, (d), II, and therefore the data does not provide persuasive evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
With regards to (1), the independent instant claim 1 is not limited to the materials used in the cited examples. The claims merely recite a polyurethane foam of a given density. It is not clear from the instant specification what amounts of what materials are being used to produce the examples. What specific polyol is reacted with what specific isocyanate? What blowing agent is used? In what amounts? The examples do not even state that the sound absorbing material is polyurethane. The data of the instant specification does not provide enough data as to what materials are being used to arrive at the sound absorbing material, let alone data which is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
With regards to (2), the data does not show any examples above 35 kg/m3. Why would the same polyurethane at a density of, for example, 37 kg/m3, not give a product with equivalent elongation or tensile strength at the example at 35 kg/m3? There is no data showing the results of increasing the density outside the instantly claimed range. What happens at a density of 36 kg/m3, outside the instantly claimed range? Will the tensile strength and elongation be the same or better than that at 35 kg/m3? There is simply no data to determine what occurs.
Furthermore, are each of the examples made from the same components? What is being varied to arrive at the given density? Why is the tensile strength identical for foams at 25, 23, 21, and 19 kg/m3 (Examples 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively)? Why do examples at 23 kg/m3 given different tensile strengths and elongations? Examples 4 and 7 both have a density of 23 kg/m3, yet example 4 has an elongation of 135% and a tensile strength of 0.10 MPa, while Examples 7 has an elongation of 180% and 0.16 MPa. Why did the values change?
What Examples 4 and 7 persuasively demonstrate, is that a given density does not provide for a given elongation or tensile strength, which is evidence against the criticality and against unexpected results of the instantly claimed density range. If a high tensile strength is desired, Examples 7 and 10 have a density outside the instantly claimed range (23 and 35 kg/m3, respectively), and these examples have a higher tensile strength that Examples 13 and 14, which have densities of 31 and 33 kg/m3, which falls within the range of the instant claims, with the tensile strengths being 0.14 and 0.12 MPa for Examples 13 and 14, respectively. If high elongation is desired, Example 2 at a density of 26 kg/m3 (outside the instantly claimed range) achieves a higher elongation that the Examples at 31 and 33 kg/m3, which are inside the instantly claimed range. What is critical? What is expected? How does the instantly claimed density range of 30 to 35 kg/m3 deviate from what is expected? Neither the data cited to by Applicants (and present in the instant specification) nor the Remarks of 3/16/2026, and thus, unexpected results and criticality cannot be and are not shown. The data is arbitrary.
With regards to Table 3, why does the sound absorbing material (again, which is never even designated as polyurethane foam, let alone designating what amounts of what materials are being used to produce the examples) at 26 kg/m3 have an elongation of 110% and a tensile strength of 0.12 MPa, while the Examples in Table 1 at the same density (Examples 2 and 8, both 26 kg/m3) have elongations of 195% and 195%, and tensile strengths of 0.11 MPa and 0.13 MPa, for Examples 2 and 8, respectively? What caused the change?
What the data definitively shows, is that density is not indicative of a particular elongation or tensile strength, because Examples at different densities can have identical elongation (see Examples 4 and 5, and Examples 7 and 11) and identical tensile strength (see Examples 4 and 5, and Examples 12 and 13), while Examples at the same density can have different elongation (See Examples 4 and 7) or different tensile strengths (see Examples 2 and 8 in Table 1, and Example at 26 kg/m3 in Table 3). There is no trend and no specific properties attributed to a given density and thus, unexpected results and criticality cannot be and are not shown.
It is respectfully requested that Applicants explain the data and Tables of the instant specification. What specific materials are being used to produce the sound-absorbing materials of Table 4? What specification materials are being reacted to form any of the Examples in the Tables? How is the specific density being achieved? None of these questions are answered by the data or the Remarks of 3/16/2026.
Applicant asserts that foams of Na do not have the instantly claimed elongation and tensile strength.
This is not persuasive.
The rejection establishes that identical materials are reacted to produce an identical product, including the same amount agent which Na specifically states is adjusted to provide a desired density, meaning evidence is provided establishing that the foams of Na (produced using identical amounts of the same components) have the same density and are used to produce the same type of product (sound-proofing materials and tires). Applicants have provided no evidence which demonstrates the contrary. The burden is shifted to Applicants to provide factually supported objective evidence showing that the claimed tensile strength and elongation are not present, and no such evidence has been provided by Applicants. As stated in MPEP 2145, “arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Stating that a property is not present, is not evidence that a property is not present. MPEP 2112 states “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant argues that Na does not meet instant claim 5, stating that claim 5 recites a property. Applicant asserts that claim 5 positively recites a performance limitation “tied to specific testing condition.”
This is not persuasive.
Claim 5 recites that the claimed sound-absorbing material, “has an amount of latex solution absorbed therein, of about 3 g or less” at a given volume and foam density. What this means is, the sound-absorbing material, contains (i.e. has an amount of latex absorbed therein) of 3 g or less, which includes a value of 0. It is unclear how a material which does not contain latex, such as that of Na, contains more than 0 parts of latex. As there is no disclosure that any latex, including latex solution, is present in the sound-absorbing material of Na, the amount of latex solution absorbed therein, i.e. the amount of latex in the sound-absorbing material of Na, is 0, which falls within the range of 3 g or less, which again, includes 0. Claim 5 does not recite a property. Claim 5 recites an amount of latex solution present in a material at a given volume and density. The density of the foams of Na meets the instant claims for the reasons discussed above, and at the same volume, will still have 0 g of latex absorbed, as there is no disclosure that any latex is absorbed into the disclosed foam. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/6/2026 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766