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 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 5-12 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.
The recitation “MDI” is confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively determined what material or element is intended to be defined by this expression/abbreviation. Abbreviations on first use in claims need to be defined in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination, “MDI” has been treated as meaning “methylene diphenyl diisocyanate”.
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) 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu(6,919,384).
Yu discloses polyurethane foam seat pad formed from polyol and polyisocyanate, wherein polyol, including a polyol having ethylene oxide content, functionality and molecular weight meeting the requirements of the claims and polyisocyanate comprising carbodimide-modified MDI as defined by the claims are used in the making of the foam {See Abstract; column 8 lines 12-13, 27-29 and 63-64; Examples, including Examples 1 and 11-13, polyols 1, 2, 5-7 and Tables}[note: polyol 5 = an EO content rate of 76 mol%, fn = 3 and OHv = 38 mg KOH/g, calculate = a Mn value of 56100*3 / 38 = 4430 g/mol; and polyisocyanate 1 = a 30/70 w/w mixture of a uretonimine/carbodiimide modified polyisocyanate having an NCO value of 29.5% by weight and 4,4'-MDI]. Though Yu does not particularly recite strain values and/or relationships, hardness, hysteresis, deflection and/or relaxation values as claimed, Yu does disclose good products utilized in automobile seating applications that have good compression, strength, hysteresis and other effects are disclosed. Owing to these effects along with the closeness of the material make-ups of the products disclosed, it is held that the products of Yu would inherently possess these strain values and/or relationships, hardness, hysteresis, deflection and/or relaxation values as claimed defined by this claim.
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses a further polyol component having (a) an EO content rate of 30 mol% or less, and (b) an average number of functional groups of 2.0 or more {see Examples, including Example 13 [note: polyol 1 defined by an EO content rate of 15 mol%, functionality of 3 and OH value of 28 mg KOH/g (i.e. Mn value of 56100*3 / 28 = 6010 g/mol)]}.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srivastava et al. is cited for its relevant disclosures to applications and materials of the instant concern.
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
