DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 10/21/2025. Applicant filed a Response, and amended claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20, on 04/09/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected.
Claims 3 and 12 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 18 have been amended to recite that a curing time of the hemp fiber foam is decreased as compared to a curing time of a foam “that does not contain hemp fiber.” Applicant points to paragraphs [0036] and [0037] of the specification as basis for this amendment.
Paragraph [0036] describes a method to form a hemp-fiber foam. No mention is made of curing times.
Paragraph [0037] recites:
“In some embodiments, a hemp fiber foam that is synthesized as described above may have improved properties compared to polyurethane or latex foam. A hemp fiber foam may have no off-gassing or offensive odors that are apparent for polyurethane or latex foams. Hemp may eliminate the need for providing an additional odor-eliminating component to a foam, such as charcoal. In some embodiments, a hemp fiber may provide a flame-retardant effect to a foam when incorporated. Thus, a hemp fiber foam synthesized according to embodiments of the present disclosure may also eliminate a need of adding flame retardant components, such as plexiglass, to a foam.”
No mention is made of curing times in paragraph [0037]. The general statement “improved properties” does not equate to decreased curing times as compared to foams that do not contain hemp fibers as currently claimed. Further, there does not appear to be any explanation in Applicant’s specification of the compared “foam,” e.g., is it a foam not comprising hemp, is it a foam not made by the claimed methods, is it a polyurethane or latex foam, etc.
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).
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s Amendments have overcome the claim objections previously of record.
2) Applicant’s Amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously of record. Note, however, the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to Applicant’s claim amendments.
3) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection 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)” (IQS), Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Specifically, contrary to the Office's arguments, van der Kooy does not disclose or suggest adjusting an amount of water in a reaction mixture based on the amount of water already absorbed in the hemp fiber. Rather, van der Kooy only contemplates adjusting an amount of isocyanate based on a fixed amount of water absorbed in a natural fiber to achieve a desired porosity in the resultant polyurethane foam. Indeed, van der Kooy teaches that certain porosities should be targeted to obtain a foam product having desirable properties, e.g., good shock absorption and low specific gravity, and further teaches that adjusting the isocyanate content can adjust the porosity. See van der Kooy at Col. 3, lines 11-26. van der Kooy is entirely silent regarding ‘providing an amount of water to the mixture based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber,’ as recited in Applicant's instantly pending claims.”
Remarks, pages 9-10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). MPEP 2144.I.
As stated on page 12 of the Office Action mailed 10/21/2025, 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 (emphasis added) (van der Kooy; col.3, lines 11-26). Fiber materials which have a certain amount of moisture content include hemp (emphasis added) (van der Kooy; col. 3, lines 27-40).
Based on the teachings of van der Kooy, it is clear that the water naturally present in hemp can be advantageously used in the foaming reaction of isocyanate with water. Therefore, the rationale to adjust the water content added when forming the hemp-containing foam of Zhang, based on the amount of water naturally present in the hemp, is implied van der Kooy, and would have been an obvious modification within the knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, if hemp had a 4% water content which could be used in the reaction of isocyanate with water to form a foam, it would have been obvious those skilled in the art to take this water content into account, and therefore modify the amount of added water for the reaction, based on the teachings of van der Kooy.
4) Applicant further argues:
“The IQS reference also fails to disclose adjusting an amount of water based on an amount of water absorbed in a hemp fiber. Moreover, the Office has not relied on IQS to remedy this deficiency in Zhang.”
Remarks, page 10.
Examiner has not relied upon IQS as teaching the claim limitation “providing an amount of water to the mixture based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber.” Instead, the combination of Zhang and van der Kooy teach this claim limitation, as discussed in 3) above and on pages 11-13 of the Office Action mailed 10/21/2025. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the rejection over Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS is proper.
5) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS, and further in view of Neff et al, US 9018272 B2 (Neff), Applicant argues:
“As detailed above, Zhang, van der Kooy, and IQS all fail to disclose providing an amount of water to the mixture based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber, as claimed. Neff does not cure this deficiency because Neff also does not contemplate providing an amount of water to the mixture based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber as claimed.”
Remarks, page 11.
Examiner has not relied upon Neff as teaching the claim limitation “providing an amount of water to the mixture based on the amount of absorbed moisture within the amount of hemp fiber.” Instead, the combination of Zhang and van der Kooy teach this claim limitation as discussed in 3) above and on pages 11-13 of the Office Action mailed 10/21/2025. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the rejection over Zhang in view of van der Kooy and IQS, and further in view of Neff, is proper.
Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 /STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 6/18/26
Prosecution Insights