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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 13-24 are pending. Claims 14 and 21 are amended. Claims 20 and 22-24 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 11/14/2025, the claim objections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 09/22/2025. Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al., US 20150210814 A1, in view of Wang et al., “Recycling of waste melamine formaldehyde foam as flame-retardant filler for polyurethane foam,” Journal of Polymer Research (2019), both provided in Applicant’s IDS. Evidentiary support is provided by Steinke et al., US 20130337255 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Gross discloses a process for producing a melamine resin foam (producing melamine-formaldehyde foam, [0025]) comprising heating (heating, [0027]) and foaming (foaming, [0027]) an aqueous mixture M (aqueous mixture M1, [0026]-[0027]) using microwave radiation (microwave radiation, [0027]), said mixture M comprising at least one melamine-formaldehyde precondensate (melamine-formaldehyde precondensate, [0033]-[0034]), at least one curative (curative, [0035]), at least one surfactant (surfactant, [0036]) and at least one blowing agent (blowing agent, [0038]).
Gross further discloses the mixture including additives known in the art ([0040], [0059]), such as flame retardants ([0059]), but does not disclose the mixture comprises melamine resin foam particles.
In the analogous art of recycling waste melamine formaldehyde foam (Abstract), Wang discloses producing melamine resin foam particles that can be added into a foaming mixture as a flame-retardant filler (Abstract, p. 2/12 Materials and methods), i.e., a foam additive that is a flame retardant. Wang teaches the melamine resin foam particles have good flame retardant performance without obvious impairment of the mechanical properties of the foam, provide an eco-friendly way for waste melamine foam recycling, and are able to be easily and cheaply obtained and used (Abstract, Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixture M of Gross to include melamine resin foam particles as an additive for the benefit of increased flame retardance, as desired by Gross and taught by Wang, in a resource-efficient manner. Wang discloses the MF particles being useful as an additive with flame retardant properties in a foaming process, and while Wang describes a polyurethane foaming mixture, not a melamine foaming mixture specifically, given the chemical similarity of the MF particles with MF foam, which Wang associates with successful compatibility and performance (p. 4/12), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination to achieve the described benefits. The expectation is further supported by Steinke which evidences that it was known in the art to add melamine-formaldehyde resin particulate filler material ([0012], [0014]) to feedstocks for melamine-formaldehyde foam production ([0023]-[0024]).
Regarding the density of the resulting foam, the combination discloses the same materials as presently claimed are processed in the same manner as claimed to make the same product, and thus the product should have the same properties. 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 (MPEP 2112.01(I)). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Furthermore, Gross discloses melamine resin foams produced following the taught method typically have density values within the claimed range (Table 1 on pp. 10-11, see “Density” row, e.g., Example 1 density 11 g/l, equivalent to 11 kg/m3), supporting the conclusion. Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner provides evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13, wherein the melamine resin foam particles have a particle size distribution with a D90 value below 150 µm (Wang: D90 is below 100 µm, Fig. 1c). Wang discloses the particle size is determined using a laser particle size analyzer (p. 2/12, Characterization – Particle size distribution) and thus the combination does not disclose the determination is by microscopy. However, microscopy was a known technique for the determination of particle size distribution, as evidenced by Steinke (e.g., [0009], [0018]). Accordingly, each technique was known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the determination by microscopy for the determination by laser as a substitution of one known technique for another yielding predictable results of a determination of the particle size distribution. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 15, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13. The combination is silent as to a particular bulk density of the melamine resin foam particles. However, Wang disclose the particles are made from the claimed material (melamine resin foam scrap), which is broken into pieces and then processed into a powder by milling (Wang, p. 2/12 – Preparation of MF powder), in line with the present disclosure (milling melamine resin foam scrap, filed specification, p. 2, lines 22-26). 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 (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Accordingly, as the combination discloses the claimed materials processed in substantially the same manner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed property was met.
Regarding claim 16, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13. The formulation set forth above does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of melamine resin foam particles to melamine formaldehyde precondensate is in the range from 0.5/100 to 10/100. Gross further discloses the additive being provided in a ratio of 0 to 20 parts by weight, preferably 0 to 10 parts by weight ([0040]) relative to 100 parts by weight of the melamine formaldehyde precondensate ([0034]). As such, Gross teaches an overlapping weight ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the taught additive to the mixture.
Regarding claim 17, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13, and Gross discloses said mixture M comprises a surfactant mixture (surfactant mixture, [0036], [0042]) comprising a mixture of 50-90 wt.% of at least one anionic surfactant (comprising a mixture of 50 to 90 wt.% of an anionic surfactant, [0042]) and 10-50 wt.% of at least one nonionic surfactant (and 10 to 50 wt.% of a nonionic surfactant, [0042]), wherein the weight percentages are each based on the total weight of the surfactant mixture (the weight percentages are each based on the total weight of the surfactant mixture, [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13, wherein formic acid is used as curative (formic acid is the preferred curative, [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13, wherein pentane is used as blowing agent (pentane blowing agent, [0052]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Gross discloses the process of claim 13. As set forth above, the combination discloses the melamine resin foam product comprised of the claimed materials and made by the same process, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed density range as being similarly met. MPEP 2112.01(I)-(II). Furthermore, Gross discloses melamine resin foams produced following the taught method typically have density values within the claimed range (Table 1 on pp. 10-11, see “Density” row, e.g., Example 1 density 11 g/l, equivalent to 11 kg/m3), supporting the conclusion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 5) that Gross does not disclose or suggest the addition of melamine resin foam particles to the foaming mixture. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the rejection relied on a combination of references including Gross in view of Wang as evidenced by Steinke in addressing the argued limitation.
Applicant argues (p. 5) that Wang does not disclose or suggest that melamine-formaldehyde foam particles are suitable for or compatible with melamine-formaldehyde foam systems. Applicant argues (pp. 5-6) that neither Gross nor Wang provide data or examples supporting the compatibility or performance of MF foam particles in MF foam, and Wang’s findings are limited to PUF systems.
These arguments are not found persuasive. Gross teaches incorporating a known flame retardant filler in their MF foaming mixture ([0059]) and does not specify a particular filler. Wang discloses that a known flame retardant filler useful in foaming mixtures was MF foam particles (Abstract, Conclusion). Wang additionally ascribes multiple benefits to the use of MF foam particles particularly as the flame retardant additives in foaming mixtures (Abstract, Conclusion). The foam produced in Wang is polyurethane foam (PUF) and not MF foam; however, Wang discloses that the suitability of the MF foam particle additive in the PUF mixture is due to the fact that the MF additive is well incorporated into PU, and that PUF and MF foam powder have chemical similarities rendering them compatible and thus rendering MF foam powder as a superior flame retardant filler in the foam (p. 4/12, left column). As set forth previously, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have reasonably expected that MF foam particle additive is capable of incorporation into and chemically compatible with MF foam, as they are both based on melamine formaldehyde. The conclusion was supported by Steinke which evidences that it was known to include MF filler material into MF foam mixtures (Office Action, p. 5).
Applicant argues (p. 6) that Gross’s disclosure of including additives that are known in the art refers to conventional flame retardants and does not encompass recycled MF foam particles.
This argument is not found persuasive. As set forth above, the rejection relied on a combination of references and not solely on Gross. Furthermore, Gross does not disclose that MF foam particles could not be used as the flame retardant filler, and Applicant does not provide evidence to support that recycled MF foam particles were not a conventional flame retardant or would be specifically excluded by Gross’s disclosure. Contrary to this assertion, Wang supports that MF foam particles were a known foam additive specifically as a flame retardant.
Applicant argues (p. 6) that Steinke does not provide motivation to add melamine resin foam particles to a MF foaming mixture as claimed and states that Steinke’s independent claims and examples are limited to inorganic fillers such as quartz sand and glass beads and do not include melamine resin foam.
This argument is not found persuasive. Steinke was not relied upon to provide motivation for the combination but was applied as support for the combination of Gross and Wang, evidencing that it was known to include MF fillers in MF foaming mixtures. The fact that Steinke also discloses other types of fillers, even if these other types of fillers are used in examples and are claimed, does not negate that the reference supports the known use of MF fillers as an additive in MF foaming mixtures. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including nonpreferred and alternative embodiments (MPEP 2123).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754