DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Non-Patent Literature cited in the IDS filed 05/17/2023 has not been considered for the following reasons.
The cited NPL references are missing the publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date.
See MPEP 609 and C.F.R. 1.98: Content of information disclosure statement: (b) (5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
Each cited URL must include at least a retrieval date for consideration. No dates have been provided for the cited internet publications.
See MPEP 609.04(a) I: For publications obtained from the internet, the uniform resource locator (URL) of the webpage that is the source of the publication must be provided for the place of publication (e.g., "www.uspto.gov"). The publisher may be evident from the URL of the webpage.
Further, for an internet publication obtained from a website that archives webpages, both the URL of the archived webpage submitted for consideration and the URL of the website from which the archived copy of the webpage was obtained should be provided on the document listing (e.g., "Hand Tools," webpage <http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html>, 1 page, August 18, 2009, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <http://web.archive.org/web/20090818144217/ http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html> on December 20, 2012). Where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not known, the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time ) when the document was available as a publication.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I: wherein the foam reactants include a polyol and an isocyanate, claims 2 and 11.
Species II: wherein the foam reactants include a latex, claims 3 and 12.
The species are independent or distinct because polyurethane foams produced from polyol and isocyanate reactants, and foams produced from latex reactants, are different in chemical composition and properties, aesthetic properties such as comfort and support, cost and sustainability. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1, 4-10 and 13-20 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin Levitas on 10/03/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4-9, line 1, it is suggested to amend “The method” to “The method of producing a hemp fiber foam” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 11 and 13-20, line 1, it is suggested to amend “The method” to “The method of producing a hemp fiber foam bedding material” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the period at the end of claim 16 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 18-19 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 term “decreased as compared to a curing time of a foam” in claims 9 and 18 is indefinite. It is unclear to what “foam” these claims are referring, as the term “foam” encompasses hemp fiber foams as claimed.
The term “foam” of claims 9 and 18 has been interpreted as meaning “foams which do not include hemp fibers wherein the hemp fibers contain an amount of absorbed moisture” for this Office Action. Examiner notes that basis for this interpretation does not appear in the specification as filed.
Regarding dependent claim 19, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 18 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, CN 115322320 A (Zhang) in view of van der Kooy, US 5037690 (van der Kooy) and Editorial by Industrial Quick Search, “Polyurethane Foam (Foam Fabricating)” (herein referred to as IQS).
The attached machine translation of Zhang is referenced in the below rejections.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 16 and 20, Zhang teaches a method for preparing a plant polyurethane foam material from Chinese herbal medicine straws, and its use in ecological home furnishings (Zhang; page 2, lines 1-2). The plant polyurethane foam material can be used in household products such as mattresses and pillows [i.e., incorporating the hemp foam as a bedding material (claim 10), wherein the bedding material is a mattress (claim 20)], as well as sofas (Zhang; page 2, lines 9-12). The active ingredients contained in some Chinese herbal medicine straws, such as hemp, can effectively improve people’s sleep quality, and have a special calming effect (Zhang; page 2, lines 24-26).
The preparation process of the plant polyurethane foam comprises the following steps:
pretreatment of the plant raw materials including drying in the sun, coarsely grinding, finely grinding, and sieving to obtain raw material QY;
Pretreating raw material QY by soaking in alcohol to obtain raw material YY (Zhang; page 2, lines 52-58).
The plant material in (1) can be hemp, wherein the pretreated hemp has a moisture content of 2%, and wherein the hemp can be hemp stalks (i.e., an amount of hemp fiber containing an amount of moisture of claims 1 and 10) (Zhang; page 3, lines 8-13 and page 5, lines 29-30). Examiner notes the instant specification discloses that hemp stalks comprise hemp fibers as claimed at ¶ [0015] and Fig. 1 (emphasis added).
Raw material YY of step (2), which is soaked in alcohol, also corresponds to the claimed an amount of hemp fiber containing an amount of moisture of claims 1 and 10.
The steps further include:
Liquefying raw material YY with a polyether polyol as a solvent to obtain a liquefied plant raw material ZY;
The liquefied raw plant material ZY is compounded with polyether polyol to form a white material, and then reacted with isocyanate to obtain a plant polyurethane foaming material (Zhang; page 3, lines 1-6).
Step (4) corresponds to providing a mixture of foam reactants including an amount of hemp fiber; and reacting the mixture (claims 1 and 10), wherein the foam reactants include a polyol and an isocyanate (claims 2 and 11).
Step (4) may include the addition of a foaming agent, wherein water may be the foaming agent (i.e., providing an amount of water to the mixture of claims 1 and 10) (Zhang; page 3, lines 5-6 and 34-35).
In Example 2, Zhang exemplifies:
Preprocessing hemp stalk which includes drying in the sun to a moisture content of less than 1%, followed by mechanical crushing to form a powder (i.e., the powder of claims 7 and 16);
Pretreating with glycerol and marijuana;
Combining the hemp straw, PPG600 (i.e., a polyether polyol), phosphoric acid, and a complex to obtain a white material;
Combining the white material with MDI (i.e., methylene diphenyl diisocyanate), water, organosilicon and a catalyst, and reacting to form hemp ecological polyurethane (i.e., the amount of hemp fiber is incorporated into the hemp fiber foam of claims 1 and 10) (Zhang; page 5, line 22-page 6, line 4). The reaction temperature is 15-30oC (Zhang; page 6, line 2).
Zhang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the amount of water added to the mixture is based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of the hemp fiber (claims 1 and 10); and
pouring the mixture into a mold and curing the mixture (claims 1 and 10); and
cutting the hemp fiber foam into at least one piece (claim 10).
With respect to difference (i), van der Kooy teaches a novel shaped product comprising a sheet material of polyurethane resin reinforced with a binder-free, natural fiber material such as hemp (van der Kooy; Abstract). The shaped products include couches and beds (van der Kooy; col. 2, lines 15-30).
From polyurethane chemistry, it is known that the isocyanate component is capable of reacting with water according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 3-10).
The invention of van der Kooy is based upon the idea, based on the reaction of isocyanate with water, to make good use of the water naturally available in natural-fiber materials, the content of which is at least 4%, to produce a polyurethane resin material which exhibits a foaming effect as a result of the carbon dioxide gas released during the reaction of the isocyanate component with the water. The product obtained by the method of van der Kooy has a certain porosity. This porosity can be controlled to a certain extent by varying the proportion of isocyanate in the mixture (van der Kooy; col.3, lines 11-26).
Fiber materials which have a certain amount of moisture content include hemp. Depending upon the application of the fiber-reinforced material, fibers or combinations thereof suitable for such purpose can be selected (van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 27-40).
van der Kooy is analogous art as it teaches using hemp fiber comprising a certain moisture content in the reaction of isocyanate with water to form a reinforced, porous polyurethane material.
In light of the motivation provided by van der Kooy to use a fiber material with a moisture content when reacting isocyanates with water to form a porous polyurethane material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not fully dry the hemp in step (1) of Zhang, but instead use a hemp fiber material which includes a moisture content, in the production methods of Zhang, in order to make use of the water naturally available in the hemp fibers to produce a polyurethane material which exhibits a good foaming effect as a result of the carbon dioxide gas released during the reaction of the isocyanate component with the water. Those skilled in the art would recognize that decreasing the drying during pretreatment of the hemp fibers saves time, money and simplifies the pretreatment step of Zhang. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an amount of water foaming agent based on the amount of water absorbed in the hemp fiber in step (4) of Zhang, because van der Kooy teaches that the absorbed moisture is used in the foaming reaction of isocyanate with water, and in order to obtain the desired foaming action and porosity.
With respect to differences (ii) and (iii), IQS teaches a detailed insight into polyurethane foams (IQS; page 1, “Introduction”). Polyurethane foams can be made by molding processes from either polyether or polyester polyols, and are used in mattresses, as well as furniture and seat cushions (IQS; page 4, “Flexible and Rigid Polyurethane Foams,” para 1). Polyurethane raw materials include polyols, diisocyanates and blowing agents (IQS; page 5, “Chapter 2: Raw Materials,” para 1), wherein diisocyanates include methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) [IQS; page 8, para “Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI)”] and wherein blowing agents include water (IQS; page 10, para “Chemical Blowing Agents”). The process involves blending and mixing the reactive components, i.e., polyols, diisocyanates and chemical blowing agents (IQS; page 12, “Chapter 3: Production of Polyurethane Foam,” para 1).
During molded foam production, the components are poured into a preheated mold and reacted. The cold-mold process uses polymer systems prepared from polyethers and a blend of TDI and MDI, or 100% MDI. The faster reaction of MDI results in lower mold temperatures (IQS; pages 15-16, “Molded Foam,” para 1-2).
Once the foaming process is complete, it passes through secondary processes such as curing and cutting (IQS; page 13, para 1).
Since polyurethane foam comes in blocks, it can be easily trimmed and cut to produce various sizes of mattresses. The density of the foam determines the type of mattress it is used to manufacture (IQS; page 21, “Chapter 5: Polyurethane Foam Products, para 1-2).
IQS is analogous art as it teaches polyurethane foam mattresses formed by reacting a mixture of a polyol, isocyanate and water, pouring into a mold, curing, cutting, and incorporating into a mattress.
Note: The exemplified reaction of Example 2 of Zhang reacts hemp, a polyether polyol, MDI and water at a reaction temperature is 15-30oC (Zhang; page 5, line 22-page 7, line 4). Zhang also teaches that the hemp polyurethane foams are used in, for example, mattresses (Zhang; page 2, lines 9-11).
In light of the motivation provided by IQS to form molded foams made of polyether and MDI by the cold-mold process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pour reaction mixture of Zhang in view of van der Kooy, which includes a mixture of a moistened hemp fiber, a polyether polyol, MDI, and water, into a mold as claimed in order to obtain a “cold-mold” process with a fast reaction time of MDI at low temperatures, thereby saving time and energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further process the foamed products of Zhang in view of van der Kooy by curing (claims 1 and 10) and cutting into at least one piece (claim 10) before incorporating into a mattress, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, because IQS teaches such steps as conventional after the foaming process is complete, and teaches that foams used for mattresses are easily trimmed and cut to produce various size mattresses.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, as discussed above. Zhang teaches adding 100kg hemp straw to 500kg of PPG, 18kg phosphoric acid, and 6kg complex (100kg + 500 kg + 18kg + 6kg = total 624kg) to form marijuana ZY (Zhang; page 5, lines 4450). Therefore, marijuana ZY comprises 100/624 * 100 = 16% by weight hemp straw.
Marijuana ZY is compounded with polyether 220 in a weight ratio of 1:2 to form “White material” (Zhang; page 5, lines 52-56). Therefore, white material comprises 1/3 * 100 = 33.33% Marijuana ZY. Marijuana ZY comprises 16% hemp straw as calculated above. Therefore, white material comprises 33.33 * 0.16 = 5.33% hemp straw.
In foaming formula and process, the following components are added:
100kg white material + 70kg MDI + 1.6 kg water + 1 kg organosilicon + 0.1 kg catalyst = 172.7 kg total mixture (Zhang; page 5, lines 58-60). 100 kg white material comprises 5.33% hemp straw as calculated above. Therefore, 100 kg of white material comprises 5.33kg hemp straw.
5.33kg hemp straw/172.7kg total mixture * 100 = 3.08% hemp straw.
Therefore, the reaction mixture of Example 2 comprises 3.08% of hemp straw, wherein comprises hemp fibers. This falls within the claimed range of up to 25.0 wt% hemp fiber.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 4 and 13 respectively, as discussed above.
Zhang teaches that in step (1) of the pretreatment process, the moisture content of the hemp should meet the standard of a moisture content of 2% (Zhang; page 3, lines 11-13).
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of water provided to the mixture is decreased in an amount ranging up to 2.5 weight percent.
van der Kooy teaches making use of the water naturally available in natural-fiber materials, the content of which is at least 4%, to produce a polyurethane resin material which exhibits a foaming effect as a result of the carbon dioxide gas released during the reaction of the isocyanate component with the water. The product obtained by the method of van der Kooy has a certain porosity (van der Kooy; col.3, lines 11-26).
Fiber materials which have a certain amount of moisture content include hemp (van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 27-30).
In light of the motivation provided by van der Kooy to use the water naturally available in hemp fibers to produce a polyurethane which exhibits a foaming effect, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry the hemp in the pretreatment step (1) in the methods of Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS, to a moisture content of 2% in order to make use of the water naturally available in the hemp fibers to produce a polyurethane material which exhibits a good foaming effect as a result of the carbon dioxide gas released during the reaction of the isocyanate component with the water in the hemp fibers. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of water added as the foaming agent in step (4) of Zhang, to account for the water present in the moistened hemp fibers because van der Kooy teaches that the moisture in the fibers is used during the foaming reaction of isocyanate with water. Upon doing so would resulting in decreasing the amount of water provided to the mixture by an amount which falls within the claimed range up to 2.5 weight percent, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Further, because Zhang teaches using pretreated hemp with a moisture content up to 2%, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success upon using hemp comprising 2% moisture.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, as discussed above.
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of water provided to the mixture is decreased by the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber.
van der Kooy teaches from polyurethane chemistry, it is known that the isocyanate component is capable of reacting with water according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 3-10).
van der Kooy further teaches to use of the water naturally available in natural-fiber materials during the reaction of isocyanate with water to produce a polyurethane resin material which exhibits a foaming effect as a result of the carbon dioxide gas released during the reaction of the isocyanate component with the water (van der Kooy; col.3, lines 11-26). Fiber materials which have a certain amount of moisture content include hemp (van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 27-30).
In light of the teachings of van der Kooy to make use of the water present in natural hemp fibers during the reaction of isocyanate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the amount of water added to the reaction mixture of Zhang as modified by van der Kooy and IQS in an amount equivalent to the water content of the hemp fibers in order to make use of the water present in the hemp fibers during the reaction to form a foaming polyurethane material, reduce the drying time and energy used in the pretreatment drying step of Zhang, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, as discussed above. Zhang exemplifies using hemp stalks in Example 2 (Zhang; page 5, lines 29-30). As is evidenced by the instant specification at ¶ [0015] and Fig. 1, hemp stalks comprise hurd fiber as claimed.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, as discussed above, wherein the polyurethane foams are cured once foaming is complete (IQS; page 13, para 1).
Zhang in view of van der Kooy and further in view of IQS do not explicitly teach wherein a curing time of the hemp fiber foam is decreased compared to a curing time of a foam.
Given that the methods of Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS are substantially equivalent to the methods used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the curing times of the produced hemp fiber foam is decreased compared to a curing time of a foam as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, CN 115322320 A (Zhang) in view of van der Kooy and IQS as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Neff et al, US 9018272 B2 (Neff).
Neff was cited in the IDS filed 05/17/2023.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above, wherein MDI is used as a reactant (Zhang; page 5, line 22-page 6, line 4), resulting in a faster reaction and lower mold temperatures (IQS; pages 15-16, “Molded Foam,” para 1-2). The polyurethane foam is cured once the foaming process is complete (IQS; page 13, para 1).
Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS do not explicitly teach wherein the curing time of the hemp fiber foam is shorter than three days.
With respect to the difference, Neff teaches a polyurethane foam produced from an isocyanate component, a polyether polyol, and a blowing agent, wherein the blowing agent may be water (Neff; Abstract; col. 5, lines 39-42; col. 9, lines 25-31). The isocyanate component comprises a monomeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate component (MDI), and isomers thereof. The MDI component is believed to influence reaction parameters such as curing time of the polyurethane foam (Neff; col. 3, lines 51-62). The reaction mixture is made at 15 to 30oC and may be poured into a mold (col. 10, lines 39-52). Neff teaches curing times of 24-48 hours, followed by cutting of the foams (Neff; col. 13, lines 47-51).
The polyurethane foams may be used in, for example, mattresses (Neff; col. 2, lines 30-34).
Neff is analogous art as it teaches polyurethane foams made from polyols, isocyanate, and a water blowing agent, wherein the foams may be poured into a mold, cured, cut, and used in mattresses.
In light of the motivation provided by Neff that polyurethane foams made from MDI components influence curing times, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the curing time of the polyurethane foams of Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS to 24-48 hours in order to obtain a sufficiently cured polyurethane foam. 24 to 48 hours falls within the claimed range of shorter than three days.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viscusi et al, “Natural fiber reinforced inorganic foam composites from short hemp bast fibers obtained by mechanical decortation of unretted stems from the wastes of hemp cultivations,” teaches a method of treating hemp fibers to improve the wettability, wherein the treated hemp fibers are used to reinforce inorganic foams.
Tomka, US 5705536, teaches a substantially biodegradable polymer foam comprising a material which is capable of binding water by capillary action, wherein the material can be hemp fibers and ramie fibers (col. 6, lines 30-37), wherein the fibers may be water-saturated (col. 5, lines 7-9). Water bound by capillary in the material is released and causes the polymer to foam (Abstract).
Zhen et al, CN 109762283 A, teaches recyclable, water-soluble, degradable foams which include a cellulose fiber, such as hemp fibers, wherein said fibers have a water content of 0-5% (attached machine translation; page 3, lines 12-20).
Gu et al, CN 104004319 A, teaches a method of forming a phenolic foam comprising hemp fiber having a water content, pouring into a mold, and curing.
Qiu et al, CN 113999361 A, teaches a method of forming a polyurethane foam comprising hemp fibers with a moisture content less than 2%, wherein said foams may be used in mattresses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/CDL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732