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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See page 1, par. [0003] Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-4 and 17 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 3 -4 and 17 contain the limitation “the polyol comprises at least one of petroleum and natural oils” and “ the polyol comprises at least one of animal by-products and vegetable oil”. However, none of the materials referred to in the claims after the “at least one of” are polylols in their claimed stated. One of ordinary skill in the art would not describe petroleum, a hydrocarbon mixture, as a “polyol”. It appears that the Applicant may be trying to claim that the polyols are made from or derived from the claimed materials. 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. Claim s 1- 2, 5-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakrout (WO 2017/204778) (cited in the IDS filed on 08/24/2023). Regarding claim s 1 -2, 5 , 9, 16 and 18 , Lakrout et al. teaches a filled polyurethane or polyisocyanurate foam composition which is formed from the reaction of one or more isocyanate and one or more polyols and wherein the composition further includes a filler. (Abstract). Lakrout et al. therefore teaches a polymer foam composition made from isocyanate and polyol having a filler suspended in the polymer foam. With respect to the relative amounts of the components, Lakrout et al. teaches that the filler particles are present in an amount of 35-90% of the polymer stock (i.e. the combination of isocyanate, polyol and filler) (page 15, lines 24-31). The polyurethane foam (i.e. including the isocyanate and polyol) can be present in the foam stock in an amount of 10-50% weight (col. 13, lines 10-19). Relative amounts of polyol and isocyanate are disclosed in Table 2 and page 34: 17/13 (1.3:1), 19/14 (1.35:1) and 14/13.4. (1.04:1) and further teaches that the relative ratio of isocyanate to polyol groups should generally lie in the range of 0:5 to 1.5:1 (page 12, lines 20-31). In the composition wherein the polyurethane foam accounts for 10% by weight of the total polymer stock, based on the ratio taught in the inventive example 1, the content of isocyanate would therefore account for 4.34% (10/2.3) and the polyol would account for 5.65% (4.34 x 1.3), which lies within the presently claimed range. 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). Regarding claims 6-7, Lakrout teaches using methylene based diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate. (page 4, lines 18-28). Regarding claim 8, Lakrout teaches the use of a curing catalyst (gelation catalyst) (page 13, lines 1-5), surfactants (page 18, lines 16-22) and foaming agent (blowing agent). (page 18, line 4-15). Regarding claims 10-12, the filler material may be organic or organic and including metallic materials in the form of antimony trioxide, titanium dioxide or zinc oxide or metallic fibers. (page 13, line 29- page 14, line 7 and line page 16, lines 12-31) Regarding claim 14, the filler materials would occupy a certain volume of the foam and therefore be placed in a “designated region” as presently claimed. Regarding claim s 15 and 19 , Lakrout teaches a method of making the foam material. (Abstract). Regarding claim 20, when multiple filler materials are used together, each filler would occupy space/volume in the foam which another type of filler would not. Therefore, the two fillers would be “located in a different location” as presently claimed. Claims 3 - 4 , 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakrout (WO 2017/204778) in view of Simpson (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0311378) Lakrout does not disclose that the polyols comprise petroleum, natural or vegetable oils or animal-by products. Regarding claims 3-4 and 17 , Simpson teaches a conductive polymer foam composition which may include a polyurethane based foam material. (Abstract and par. [0059]). Simpson teaches that polyurethane foams are made using isocyanate and polyol materials, as in Lakrout et al. (par. [0061] -[ 0063]) and that suitable polyols may include natural/vegetable oil derived polyols from castor oil. (par. [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a natural/vegetable oil derived polyol in the foam composition of Lakrout based on the teachings of Simpson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use natural/vegetable oil derived polyols in view of the disclosure in Simpson that these are known materials suitable for making polyurethane foam compositions. T he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a natural/vegetable oil derived polyol as a reactant for forming a polyurethane foam based on the teaching of Simpson. Regarding claim 13, Simpson teaches that the foam material may include magnetic filler materials to align them in a magnetic field for producing a conductive foam material. (par. [0006] -[ 0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a magnetic filler material in the foam composition of Lakrout in view of the teachings of Simpson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a magnetic filler material in the foam for providing a material which aligns in a magnetic field to control the arrangement of the filler in the foam composition of Lakrout . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5763 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alicia Chevalier can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721490 . 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. /ALEXANDRE F FERRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/03/2026