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 II. in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature of the claims is not sufficiently met by the cited art. This is not found persuasive because it is maintained that the technical feature as laid out is sufficiently met or provided for by the cited art and distinction has not been made evident over position set forth.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking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 3/17/2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-13 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, with no identifying features being set forth to identify and therefore distinguish the first liquid medium of the claims from the second liquid medium of the claims, it can not be definitively ascertained what actions are intended and/or if the claims require introduction of a second liquid medium since it appears the second liquid medium of the claims that is introduced could be the already introduced first liquid medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costeux et al.{Polymer Doc}.
Costeux et al. discloses methods for forming expanded polymeric beads by combining solid polymer beads with liquid sufficient to meet the first liquid medium of the claims in an autoclave at temperatures and pressures as claimed, wherein foaming agent is introduced with stirring at temperatures, pressures and sufficient time as claimed to obtain polymer beads saturated with foaming agent, followed by depressurization of the beads at rates and at temperatures as claimed with introduction/release to water in a simultaneous fashion to the degree as claimed, wherein instantaneous release of the beads to the second liquid is sufficient to meet the maximum introduction time criteria set forth by the claims { See pages 5 & 6 and Results, as well as Table 2}. Regarding claim 6, silica gel is sufficient to meet at least the anti-caking requirement of this claim {see page 5}. Regarding claims 9 and 12, Costeux et al. does disclose carbon dioxide as foaming agent {page 5}. Regarding claim 11, water is disclosed as a second liquid into which bead materials are released {page 5 bridging 6}. Regarding claims 12 and 13, PMMA is disclosed as the polymer material.
Costeux et al. differs from applicants’ claims in that particle sizes as claimed are not particularly specified. However, small size particles are disclosed by Costeux et al. {see Results}, and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have formed particles for expansion of any size for the purpose of providing acceptable beads for expansion and low-density foam formation in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized silica gel in any amount for purposes of imparting its known effects, including anti-caking effects, before the effective date of the invention in order to arrive at the processes of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogaki is cited for its disclosure of relevant particle body preparations in the art.
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
Prosecution Insights