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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 10 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that with the amended claims the Groupings for election of the restriction are only I and II. The examiner agrees that the product claims are now 1-6 and 10. Claims 8 and 9 are still product by process claims as amended but as they depend on the method which is current withdrawn, it is advised to re-write the preamble to clarify that the claims are purely method claims; i.e., the method of producing the reticulated polyurethane foam of claim 7, wherein…. Applicant does not appear to present any argument about the validity of the restriction between product and method claims.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that the adhesive permeates into foam holes of the of the foam material. It is unclear if the foam holes refer to the mesh holes of the foam layer, the reticulated foam holes or both. For the same of examination, foam holes will be interpreted as the reticulated foam holes.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10, are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the foaming agent" in the 1st and 2nd lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the claim should be dependent on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. (US 20180353334A1), herein Locke.
In regards to claims 1-2, Locke teaches a reticulated flexible polyurethane foam layer (146) [Abstract, Figs. 5, 6 A-B, 0099]. The foam layer (146) has holes that extend through the layer and are uniformly distributed [0098, Fig. 5, 6A]. The holes have an oval shape [0074, 0098, Fig. 5, 6A]. The foam layer further comprises and adhesive coating that is present to bond the layer to the sheet (147) [0094]. Locke teaches that the adhesive are composite adhesive that contain more than one ingredient [0062, 0074].
Locke further teaches that it is desirable for the adhesive layers to extend into the holes and into the foam to increase the strength of the adhesion [0088]. While not expressly teaching that the layer of adhesive on the foam layer (146) extends into the foam layer, it would have been obvious to ensure that the adhesive layer permeates into the holes of the foam for better anchoring and adhesion strength between the bonding surfaces of the sheet (147) and the foam layer (146).
The claim is framed under the transitional phrase including which is synonymous with comprising and thus open to additional layers or materials being present, See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a reticulated polyurethane foam with through holes uniformly distributed in the layer and a layer of glue that partially penetrates into the foam. The reference suggests such a product.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 20200214479 A1) in view of Tursi et al. (US 20140201925 A1), herein Tursi, and Jansen et al. (US 20200000241 A1), herein Jansen.
In regards to claims 1 and 10, Elliot teaches a support cushion comprising a reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer [Abstract, 0034, 0038]. Elliot further teaches the foam layer may be a plurality of layers and the layers are secured together by adhesive bonding wherein the adhesive extends the entire surface of the layer [0034, 0039]. Elliot further teaches the layer has apertures that extend through the foam layers [0040].
Elliot does not expressly teach that the foam layer is a polyurethane reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer.
Tursi teaches a body support cushion comprising layers of foam [Abstract, 0003].
The top sheet of the comprises a reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam [0012-0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam of Tursi as the reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer of Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, as reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam is taught as a conventionally known material is cushioning applications one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Elliot does not expressly teach that the through holes in the foam layer are uniformly distributed.
However, as the intended application is a cushion it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the pressure and air flow are evenly distributed through the foam layer and thus make the holes evenly distributed across the layer. Further, an even distribution of holes ensures an ease of assembly in a final product.
Elliot does not expressly teach that the adhesive is a composite glue layer that permeates into the foam holes.
Jansen teaches a body support cushion is provided with layered foam [Abstract, claim 1]. Jansen further teaches that the layers are joined together by a composite glue layer comprising a polyurethane system [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used composite adhesive of Jansen as the adhesive of Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known adhesive for foams for another to obtain predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to ensure that the adhesive partially permeates the foam layer in order to improve the adhesive bond between the layers by anchoring the adhesive in the foam as opposed to just at the surface of the foam.
The claim is framed under the transitional phrase including which is synonymous with comprising and thus open to additional layers or materials being present, See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a reticulated polyurethane foam with through holes uniformly distributed in the layer and a layer of composite glue that partially penetrates into the foam. The combination of references suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 2, Elliot teaches a support cushion comprising a reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer [Abstract, 0034, 0038]. Elliot does not expressly teach the shape of the apertures/holes in the foam layers.
However, changes in shape have been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have changed apertures of modified Elliot to H- material textures are arranged relative to one another in a chessboard pattern because changing shape has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Elliot discloses the claimed invention except for the hole shape is one of diamond, rectangle, circle, oval, or triangle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to made the hole shape a diamond, rectangle, circle, oval, or triangle, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 20200214479 A1) in view of Tursi et al. (US 20140201925A1), herein Tursi, and Jansen et al. (US 20200000241 A1), herein Jansen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vallejos et al. (Metal-free organocatalysts for high hydrolytic stability single component polyurethane adhesives and their application in decorative insulation facades manufacturing), herein Vallejos.
In regards to claims 3-5 and 6, modified Elliot does not teach wherein the composite liquid glue comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight: 20-70 parts of a liquid glue, 0.1-0.3 parts of a catalyst, and 1-5 parts of a foaming agent.
Vallejos teaches polyurethane (PU) adhesives [Abstract]. Vallejos teaches the adhesives are used to bond foams [Fig. 4]. The catalyst typically is an amine or tin [Pg. 3, col 1]. The catalyst is present at 0.1-0.3 wt% of the liquid glue formulation [Table 1-2]. Dicholormethane (DCM) is present generally at 5 wt% [Table 2, Pg. 6]. Vallejos does not expressly teach the wt% of the PU polymer present in the glue for optimal application. It would have been obvious to adjust the viscosity of glue by adding a diluent to the PU polymer so that the glue is spreadable based on the application process chosen to apply it to the foam but not too spreadable as the adhesion strength is related to the polymer is present in the glue to adhere the layers together.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parts of the liquid glue present for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a PU based adhesive with the general formulation set forth by Vallejos, with a tin or amine catalyst, DCM and an adjusted viscosity with a diluted PU polymer as the PU adhesive of modified Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as Vallejos teaches this is a conventionally known PU adhesive composition and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784