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 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 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. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP5714523 in view of EP 0835901A2. USP5714523 discloses a process for alcoholizing polyurethane foam by bringing the foam into contact with an alcoholizing polyol, allowing the foam and polyol to react in the presence of a catalyst, allowing the reaction mixture to separate into an upper and lower phase, and hydrolyzing at least one phase by the addition of water. USP5714523 further discloses that the reaction is conducted within temperature ranges overlapping those recited in claim 1 and that catalyst amounts overlap the clai m ed ranges. The reference disclose alk a li metal hyd r oxides including sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide as su i table catalysts for promoting the alcoholysis and hydrolysis rea c tions. See abstract, col. 1 lines 49-64, col. 2 lines 3, col. 6 lines 8-10, 35-37 and col. 26-27. USP5714523 does not expressly disclose the use of carbonate or hydrogen carbonate salts as the catalyst. EP0835901A2 discloses glycolysis of polyurethane scrap using catalysts selected from alkaline metal salts, including sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. The reference discloses reaction temperatures of 120-300C and catalyst amounts of 0.01-10 parts by weight, which overlap the ranges recited in claim 1. EP0835901A2 disclo s es sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate as suitable catalysts for polyurethane glycolysis reactions. See page 2 lines 41-44, 47, page 3 lines 7-11 and Figure 1. USP5714523 and EP0835901A2 are directed to the same field of polyurethane chemical recycling via glycolysis or alcoholysis reaction conducted under comparable operating conditions. USP5714523 supplies the claimed process structure, including the alcoholysis reaction, catalyst presence, phase separation, and hydrolysis step. EP0835901A2 expressly teaches that alkaline metal carbonate salts are suitable catalysts for polyurethane glycolysis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the alkali metal hydroxide catalyst of USP5714523 with the alkaline metal carbonate or hydrogen carbonate salts taught by EP0835901A2 , such as sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate, as known alternative catalysts for performing the same glycolysis reaction under similar conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success. With regard to claim 2 , i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the recited isocyanates including tolylene diisocyanates ad diphenylmethane , di or polyisocyanates, as they are conventional and routinely used in polyurethane systems and represent known alternatives in the art. With regard to claim 3 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tolylene diisocyanates alone or in combination with diphenylmethane , di or polyisocyanates, as such combinations are standard polyurethane process and are predictable variations. With regard to claim 4 , USP5714523 discloses polyurethane systems employing tolylene diisocyanates , therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable. See col. 3 lines 40-42. With regard to claim 5 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the isocyanate component to only tolylene diisocyanates as a routine formulation choice within the scope of conventional polyurethane processes. With regard to claim 6 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ polyether, polyester, polyetherester, polyacrylate, or polyether carbonate polyether carbonate polyols or combinations thereof, polyols are standard polyurethane polyols and represent routine process parameters With regard to claim 7 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to util i ze a styrene- acrylonitrile copolymer-filled polyether p o lyol, as filled polyols are well-known commercial polyurethane compo n ents used to modify foam properties. With regard to claim 8 , EP0835901A2 discloses glycolysis using alcohols including ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and related glycols, therefore the selection of recited alcohols would have been obvious. Pages 1-3 line 17 page 4 lines 2-3. With regard to claim 9 , EP0835901A2 discloses alkaline metal salts as catalysts and thus selecting an alkali or alkaline earth metal salt would have been obvious. With regard to claim 10 , EP0835901A2 teaches carbonate and hydrogen carbonate salts as glycolysis catalysts, rendering the recited metal slat selection obvious. See page 2 line 42 With regard to claim 11 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ only one of the recited metal salts as a routine optimization of catalyst selection. With regard to claim 12 , EP0835901A2 discloses catalyst amounts overlapping claimed 0.1% to 3.5% range, rendering the recited proportion obvious. Page 3 line 49- page 6 line 7 With regard to claim 13 , in addition to the discussion in claim 1, note USP5714523 discloses phase separation of the reaction mixture into disti n ct phases and it w ould have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ solvent-assisted phase separation or aqueous washing as routine purification techniques. See abstract, cols 1-4 and 6. With regard to claim 14 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include distillation and stripping steps since such separation techniques are conventional processing steps in polyurethane depolymerizations. See abstract, cols 1-4 and 6. With regard to claim 15 , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove alcohol and water from the amine phase by distillation and to further purify the amine by distillate steps since purification steps are standard chemical processing steps. In conclusion, in view of the above, the appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable. Information Disclosure Statement Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office. Improper Claim Dependency Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30. 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 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. /Terressa Boykin/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765