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 § 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 6-9 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.
The claimed ranges of “25% hardness”, "stress relaxation” and “elongation” values are confusing as to intent because they do not reference a specific standard upon which one skilled in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the claim. The claimed criteria may also likely change and/or have different standards for various applications. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
Appropriate correction is 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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2017-052882A.
JP2017-052882A discloses polyurethane foam formed from polyol and polyisocyanate, wherein polyol, including a Polyol A having ethylene oxide content meeting the requirements of the claims, is used in in amounts as claimed, including amounts meeting element (4) of the claims {See Abstract and Examples, including Example 4}. Regarding claim 7, though rebound elasticity values as claimed are not particularly recited by JP2017-052882A, products having good compression, hardness and other effects are disclosed. Owing to these effects along with the closeness of the material make-ups of the products disclosed, it is held that the products of JP2017-052882A inherently possess the rebound elasticity effects defined by this claim. Regarding claims 8 & 9, from the standpoint of patentability, a soft polyurethane foam material, without distinguishing structural effects being set forth by the claims, is sufficient to meet the “seat pad” requirements of these claims since any block of the disclosed soft polyurethane foam material could function as a seat pad {see abstract}.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neff et al.(9,670,307).
Neff et al. discloses polyurethane foam formed from polyol and polyisocyanate, wherein polyol, including a Polyol 2 having ethylene oxide content meeting the requirements of the claims, is used in in amounts as claimed, and products formed have hysteresis values meeting element (3) of the claims {See Abstract and Examples}. Regarding claim 7, though rebound elasticity values as claimed are not particularly recited by Neff et al., products having good recovery, hysteresis, compression, strength, hardness and other effects are disclosed. Owing to these effects along with the closeness of the material make-ups of the products disclosed, it is held that the products of Neff et al. inherently possess the rebound elasticity effects defined by this claim. Regarding claims 8 & 9, Neff et al. discloses their products to be used in seating {see abstract}.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2020/126586 and Tatake et al. are cited for their disclosures pertaining to elasticity elasticity and seating, respectively, in closely related product preparations.
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