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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that position is insufficiently explained. This is not found persuasive because position is sufficiently made evident as expressed which includes identification of relevant portions that are relied upon. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 29-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 21-28, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims are confusing as to intent because the means for determining the range of A/V values set forth by the claims can not be definitively determined. T he critical values a, b and c are not clearly and definitely set forth by the claims. The claims merely recites that “a= Flength and b=c= FThickness ” . B eyond the terms “ Flength ” and “ FThickness ” having no recognized meaning in the art or dictionary, the claims lack any expression or definition of what constitutes the “F length” or “F thickness” that is to be used in calculating the range of A/V values set forth by the claims. Without these key elements of equations 1 & 2 being definitively defined by the claims, the relevant meaning of the range of A/V values as set forth by the claims cannot be definitively ascertained. Further, perhaps by extension of the ambiguity discussed above, it cannot be definitively ascertained why or how separate variables “b” and “c” are required in the equations of the claims when the claim particularly recites that “b” and “c” are equal and at the same time are both “ Flength ”. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 21-28, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshita et al.( 2019/0112444) . Koshita et al. discloses molded bodies formed from thermoplastic polyurethane [note: claim 26] pellet materials as defined by applicants’ claims {see abstract, paras [0021] -[ 0026] and the Examples}. Koshita et al. discloses pellet sizes as defined by applicants’ claim 22 and ratios of length to width (aspect ratios) meeting the requirements of claim 23 {see Table 1 of the Examples}. Koshita et al. discloses molded cushioning, sport and other articles as defined by applicants’ claim 40 {see para [0002]}. Though Koshita et al. does not specifically refer to the foamed pellets of their molded articles as being elastomers, owing to the closeness of the material make-ups disclosed by Koshita et al., including their beads being thermoplastic and polyurethane, it is held that the beads of Koshita et al. would inherently be elastomeric to any degree that is required by applicants’ claims. To any degree that applicants’ claims recite a ny definitive range of A/V values {see rejection above}, though Koshita et al. does not specifically refer to A/V ratios in defining the pellets of its disclosure, it is held that owing to the closeness of the material make-ups disclosed by Koshita et al., including their beads being thermoplastic and polyurethane and having other size and shape features meeting features of dependent claims [note claims 22 & 23], it is held that the beads of Koshita et al. would inherently possess A/V ratios to the degree as defined by applicants’ claims to any degree that its recited range of values can be definitively ascertained. Regarding claims 24 and 25, though soft phase glass transition values and/or G’ modulus values as set forth by these claims are not particularly identified by Koshita et al., owing to the closeness of the materials make-ups and applications to which the formed articles are employed, it is held that the bead compositions of Koshita et al. would inherently possess the soft phase glass transition values and/or G’ modulus values as set forth by these claims. Regarding claim 27, Koshita et al. is sufficient to meet the filler requirements to the degree defined by this claim {see paras [0038], [0077] -[ 0079]}. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TW 201522446 A and TW 201122039 A are cited for their disclosures of closely related beads and molded parts of the instant concern. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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. /JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765