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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Girotti et al.(2013/0243986).
Girotti et al. discloses recycled polyurethane foam that meets the polyurethane article requirements of applicants’ claims {see para [0069]}. It is additionally noted that the polyurethane foam articles within which theses polyurethane foam fillers are included are also sufficient to meet the requirements of applicants’ claims in that (i.) they comprise the filler and (ii.) the rigid polyurethane foam of Girotti et al. sufficiently constitutes a “recycled” polyurethane from the standpoint of patentability at the moment and/or just after the moment it is formed {see title, abstract and para [0069]}.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilder et al.(7,985,468).
Gilder et al. discloses recycled polyurethane foam that meets the polyurethane article requirements of applicants’ claims {see claims}. It is additionally noted that the polyurethane foam articles within which recycled polyurethane foam powder is included are also sufficient to meet the requirements of applicants’ claims in that (i.) they comprise the recycled polyurethane foam powder and (ii.) the polyurethane foam earpiece articles of Gilder et al. sufficiently constitute a “recycled” polyurethane from the standpoint of patentability at the moment and/or just after the moment it is formed {see title, abstract and claims}.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (4,443,286).
Ikeda et al. discloses polyurethane foam scrap/waste/recyclate that meets the polyurethane article requirements of applicants’ claims {see column 3 line 59 – column 13 line 21 and claim 5}. It is additionally noted that the bonded polyurethane foam articles within which theses polyurethane foam scrap/waste chips are included are also sufficient to meet the requirements of applicants’ claims in that (i.) they comprise the scrap/waste chips filler and (ii.) the polyurethane foam cushions of Ikeda et al. sufficiently constitutes a “recycled” polyurethane from the standpoint of patentability at the moment and/or just after the moment it is formed {see title, abstract, column 3 line 59 – column 13 line 21 and claim 5}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Previous rejection under 35USC102 over Wujcik et al.(2013/0237622) is withdrawn in light of cancellation of rejected claims. As reference is no more applicable than the above cited references and/or does not serve to apply to the claims in any unique way not already addressed by the above cited references, it has not been reapplied here. However, it is retained as art of interest for its disclosure of closely related products to those of the instant concern.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cvetezar is cited for its disclosure of relevant recycled polyurethane foam and recycled polyurethane foam containing articles in the art, including recycled foam in a reactant mix.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765