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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed January 03, 2025.
Claims 1-17 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 have been newly submitted.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 03, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a period in line 16 which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “by using the by using the” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "III. determining, on the basis of the information gained in step III., …" in line 7. There is already a step III in the claim due to the reference in line 6 to the method of claim 1 therefore the claim provides conflicting antecedent basis. Additionally, referencing step III while in step III is a circular reference that renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 19 and 20 depend upon claim 15 and therefore inherit the above rejection of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-13, 15, and 18 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 14, 16, and 19 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Claims 17 and 20 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of sorting polyurethane for recycling using spectral data, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for comparing known spectral data to unidentified spectral data to identify compounds that are recyclable or not recyclable. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The method of organizing human activity of “sorting polyurethane for recycling using spectral data,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: determining whether a first component is present based on spectral data, deciding whether to determine a second component, determining whether a second component is present based on the spectral data, indicating whether a compound is recyclable, obtaining spectral data, determine whether to recycle the foam. The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a retrieving device, and a recycling system does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: comparing spectral data with a first reference foam, comparing spectral data with a second reference foam, deciding whether to determine a third component, indicating a second chemical is not recyclable, determining a whether a third component is present based on the spectral data, comparing spectral data with a third reference foam, deciding if whether to determine a fourth component, indicating a third chemical is not recyclable, determining a fourth component, and comparing the fourth component to a reference foam.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20 recite the additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a retrieving device, and a recycling system. These non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The retrieving device step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering spectral data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recycling system limit the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the recycling field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of sorting recycling in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing recycling process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a retrieving device (Specification p. 19), and a recycling system (Specification p. 19). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting a retrieving device. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting a recycling system for polyurethane foam recycling. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, and 18, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rubio Moreno et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2024/0264078 A1), hereinafter Rubio.
Claim 1.
Rubio discloses a computer-implemented method of obtaining information on the recyclability of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the method comprising:
i. at least one first determination step, comprising automatically determining, by evaluating spectral data of the flexible foam, whether at least one first chemical compound of a predetermined first list of recyclable candidate components for a first class of monomers of polyurethane is present in the flexible foam, the first list of recyclable candidate components comprising at least one first recyclable candidate component (Rubio [0017], [0032] select conventional polyurethane for recycling and discarding viscoelastic and high resilience foams; [0027] Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is applied to a set of variables to identify which variables are correlated and which are independent; [0036] perform PCA on obtained spectra; [0014], [0041], [0060] first spectral library used to distinguish viscoelastic samples from conventional polyurethane and high resilience foam samples; [0016], [0062] run unknown samples to sort the type of foam); and
ii. at least one first decision step, comprising automatically deciding, on the basis of the outcome of step i., if a second determination step is required, the second determination step comprising determining whether at least one second chemical compound of a predetermined second list of recyclable candidate components for a second class of monomers of polyurethane is present in the flexible foam, the second list of recyclable candidate components comprising at least one second recyclable candidate component (Rubio [0017], [0032] select conventional polyurethane for recycling and discarding viscoelastic and high resilience foams; [0015], [0061] second spectral library to distinguish conventional polyurethane from high resilience polyurethane; [0016], [0062] run unknown samples to sort the type of foam).
wherein, if it is determined in the first determination step that the first chemical compound of the first list of recyclable candidate components is not present in the flexible foam, the method comprises generating at least one item of information indicating that the flexible foam is not recyclable (Rubio [0017], [0032] select conventional polyurethane for recycling and discarding viscoelastic and high resilience foams),
or else, if it is determined that the first chemical compound of the first list of recyclable candidate components is present in the flexible foam, the method further comprises the following step: iii. performing the second determination step (Rubio [0017], [0032] select conventional polyurethane for recycling and discarding viscoelastic and high resilience foams; [0015], [0061] second spectral library to distinguish conventional polyurethane from high resilience polyurethane; [0016], [0062] run unknown samples to sort the type of foam).
Claim 2.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein the first class of monomers of polyurethane comprises isocyanate monomers (Rubio [0028], [0056] known isocyanates used as calibration samples).
Claim 3.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein step i. comprises comparing the spectral data of the flexible foam with at least one first reference spectrum of at least one first flexible reference foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane comprising the at least one first chemical compound of the first list of recyclable candidate components (Rubio [0028], [0033], [0035] calibration samples; [0029], [0034] validation samples; [0030], [0038] spectral library; [0014], [0041], [0060] first spectral library used to distinguish viscoelastic samples from conventional polyurethane and high resilience foam samples).
Claim 4.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein the second class of monomers of polyurethane comprises polyol monomers (Rubio [0028], [0033] polyols present in conventional foams, HD foams, and viscoelastic foams; [0043] discard foams that will contaminate the polyol result).
Claim 5.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein step iii. comprises comparing the spectral data of the flexible foam with at least one second reference spectrum of at least one second flexible reference foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane comprising the at least one second chemical compound of the second list of recyclable candidate components (Rubio [0028], [0033], [0035] calibration samples; [0029], [0034] validation samples; [0030], [0038] spectral library; [0015], [0061] second spectral library to distinguish conventional polyurethane from high resilience polyurethane).
Claim 6.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
iv. at least one second decision step, comprising automatically deciding, after performing step iii., on the basis of the outcome of step iii., if a third determination step is required, the third determination step comprising determining whether at least one flame retardant compound of a predetermined third list of candidate flame retardant components is present in the flexible foam, the third list of candidate flame retardant components comprising at least one flame retardant candidate component (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane).
Claim 7.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 6, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein, if it is determined in the second decision step that the second chemical compound of the second list of recyclable candidate components is not present in the flexible foam, the method comprises generating at least one item of information indicating that the flexible foam is not recyclable, or else, if it is determined that the second chemical compound of the second list of recyclable candidate components is present in the flexible foam, the method further comprises the following step: v. performing the third determination step (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane).
Claim 8.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein the third list of candidate flame retardant components comprises at least one flame retardant component selected from the group consisting of: melamine derivatives, phosphates, derivatives of phosphoric acid, derivatives of phosphonic acid and derivatives of phosphinic acid (Rubio [0028], [0044] tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP; used as a flame retardant)).
Claim 9.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein step v. comprises comparing the spectral data of the flexible foam with at least one third reference spectrum of at least one third flexible reference foam comprising at least one candidate flame retardant component of the third list of candidate flame retardant components (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane; [0065] samples are used for detecting the presence of P, Cl, and Ca).
Claim 10.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
vi. at least one third decision step, comprising automatically deciding, after performing step v., on the basis of the outcome of step v., if a fourth determination step is required, the fourth determination step comprising determining the content of at least one filler compound of a predetermined fourth list of candidate filler compounds in the flexible foam, the fourth list of candidate filler compounds comprising at least one candidate filler compound (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane).
Claim 11.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 10, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein, if it is determined in the third decision step that the at least one flame retardant compound of the third list of candidate flame retardant components is not present in the flexible foam, the method comprises generating at least one item of information indicating that the flexible foam is not recyclable, or else, if it is determined that the at least one flame retardant compound of the third list of candidate flame retardant components is present in the flexible foam, the method further comprises the following step: vii. performing the fourth determination step (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane).
Claim 13.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Additionally, Rubio discloses:
wherein step vii. comprises comparing the spectral data of the flexible foam with at least one fourth reference spectrum of at least one fourth flexible reference foam comprising at least one candidate filler compound of the fourth list of candidate filler compounds (Rubio [0043], [0044] discard polyurethane foams containing Ca, P, and Cl such as those derived from calcium carbonate, used as a filler, or tris(1-chloro-2propyl) phosphate (TCPP), used as a flame retardant); [0043], [0048] analyzing Ca, P, or Cl can be carried out after sorting the polyurethane; [0065] samples are used for detecting the presence of P, Cl, and Ca).
Claim 15.
Rubio discloses a method of treatment of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the method comprising:
I. obtaining spectral data of the flexible foam (Rubio [0036]);
As shown above in claim 1, Rubio discloses the following limitation:
II. obtaining information on the recyclability of the flexible foam by using the by using the spectral data and by using the method according to claim 1; and
Rubio discloses:
III. determining, on the basis of the information gained in step III., whether or not to recycle the flexible foam (Rubio [0016], [0062] run unknown samples to sort the type of foam) and, if the information indicates a recyclability of the flexible foam, at least partially recycling the flexible foam (Rubio [0017], [0032] select conventional polyurethane for recycling).
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubio in view of Schlummer et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2008/0190819 A1), hereinafter Schulmmer.
Claim 12.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 11, as shown above. However, Rubio does not disclose the following limitation, but Schlummer does:
wherein the fourth list of candidate filler compounds comprises at least one filler compound selected from the group consisting of: polymers prepared using one or more olefinic monomers (Schlummer [0032] polymers selected from the group comprising polyurethane and polymethacrylates and blends thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the polymers as taught by Schlummer in the system of Rubio, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of anlyzing unknown polymers, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Rubio’s system with the improved functionality to consider additional potential contaminates thereby ensuring only recyclable polymers are kept.
Claim 18.
Rubio discloses all the elements of claim 11, as shown above. However, Rubio does not disclose the following limitation, but Schlummer does:
wherein the fourth list of candidate filler compounds comprises at least one filler compound selected from the group consisting of: polymers prepared using one or more olefinic monomers selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile, styrene, (meth)acrylates, (meth)acrylic acid, acrylamide, and combinations thereof (Schlummer [0032] polymers selected from the group comprising polyurethane and polymethacrylates and blends thereof).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Schlummer in the method of Rubio for the same reasons discussed above in claim 12.
Claim(s) 14, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf von Stauffenberg (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0005002 A1) hereinafter Graf, in view of Rubio.
Claim 14.
Graf discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when the instructions are executed by at least one processor (Graf [0080] computer hardware),
Graf does not disclose the following limitation, but Rubio, as shown in claim 1 above, does:
cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1.
The known technique sorting polyurethane for recycling using spectral data of Rubio, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Graf as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are processing recyclable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of sorting polyurethane for recycling using spectral data of Rubio to the spectral data of Graf (Graf [0081]) would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Rubio to the teaching of Graf would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such spectral data based sorting features into recycling systems. Further, applying sorting polyurethane for recycling using spectral data to Graf, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient analysis times of polyurethane foams, as explained by Rubio (Rubio [0006]).
Claim 16.
Graf discloses a device for obtaining information on the recyclability of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the device comprising
at least one processor (Graf [0080] computer hardware),
Graf does not disclose the following limitation, but Rubio, as shown in claim 1 above, does:
the processor being configured for performing the method according to claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Rubio in the system of Graf for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Claim 17.
Graf discloses a system for treatment of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the system comprising:
A. at least one retrieving device for retrieving spectral data of the flexible foam (Graf [0081], [0088], [0095], [0106], [0147], [0155] spectrometer);
Graf does not disclose the following limitation, but Rubio, as shown in claim 1 above, does:
B. at least one device according to the preceding claim 16; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Rubio in the system of Graf for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Graf discloses:
C. at least one recycling system for at least partially recycling the flexible foam (Graf [0151] recycler may use chemical and/or mechanical recycling methods for recycling the sorted material).
Claim 19.
Graf discloses a device for obtaining information on the recyclability of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the device comprising
at least one processor (Graf [0080] computer hardware),
Graf does not disclose the following limitation, but Rubio, as shown in claim 15 above, does:
the processor being configured for performing the method according to claim 15.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Rubio in the system of Graf for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Claim 20.
Graf discloses a system for treatment of at least one flexible foam made at least partially of at least one polyurethane, the system comprising:
A. at least one retrieving device for retrieving spectral data of the flexible foam (Graf [0081], [0088], [0095], [0106], [0147], [0155] spectrometer);
Graf does not disclose the following limitation, but Rubio, as shown in claim 19 above, does:
B. at least one device according to claim 19; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Rubio in the system of Graf for the same reasons discussed above in claim 14.
Graf discloses:
C. at least one recycling system for at least partially recycling the flexible foam (Graf [0151] recycler may use chemical and/or mechanical recycling methods for recycling the sorted material).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628