DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 8-03-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talalay, US 3031427.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Talalay teaches that a foamed product may be manufactured by molding and curing a latex composition to produce a foamed product, the latex composition having a solids content of at least 50% percent and a viscosity of 3000 centipoises or less (col. 1 ln. 21-40). Note that when a claimed rang overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostyn, US 2016/0017109 A1, in view of Brennan et al., US 2022/0227918 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 8, Bostyn teaches a method for manufacturing a foamed product, the method comprising providing a latex composition, disposing the latex composition in a mold, foaming the latex composition, and curing the latex composition to produce a solid foam block ([0001]-[0004]).
The teachings of Bostyn differ from the present invention in that Bostyn does not teach that the foamed product has different densities on the top and bottom sides. Brennan, however, teaches that it is desirable for such foam products to have a gradient of densities such that one side has a higher density than the other side in order to increase the comfort for a user (Abstract, [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the product of Bostyn with a gradient of densities from one side to the other, in accordance with the teachings of Brennan, because doing so would increase comfort for a user. Note that the designation of one side of the product as being the “top” or “bottom” is arbitrary, as either side of the product could be regarded as being either the top or the bottom.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bostyn teaches that the latex may be a styrene-butadiene rubber ([0019]).
Claims 6 and 7 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostyn, US 2016/0017109 A1, in view of Brennan et al., US 2022/0227918 A1 as applied above, and further in view of Talalay, US 3031427.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the teachings of Bostyn differ from the present invention in that Bostyn does not teach any specific rubber solids content values for the latex. Talalay, however, teaches that such latexes typically have a rubber solids content of at least 50% when natural (col. 1 ln. 27-30) or up to about 45% when synthetic (col. 1 ln. 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the latex of Bostyn with a rubber solids content of at least 50% if natural or up to about 45% when synthetic, as Talalay explicitly teaches such rubber solid contents to be typical.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talalay, US 3031427, in view of Brennan et al., US 2022/0227918 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Talalay teaches that a foamed product may be manufactured by molding and curing a latex composition to produce a foamed product as discussed above.
The teachings of Talalay differ from the present invention in that Talalay does not teach that the foamed product has different densities on the top and bottom sides. Brennan, however, teaches that it is desirable for such foam products to have a gradient of densities such that one side has a higher density than the other side in order to increase comfort for a user (Abstract, [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the product of Talalay with a gradient of densities from one side to the other, in accordance with the teachings of Brennan, because doing so would increase comfort for a user. Note that the designation of one side of the product as being the “top” or “bottom” is arbitrary, as either side of the product could be regarded as being either the top or the bottom.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Talalay teaches the use of natural or artificial rubbers, including styrene-butadiene rubber.
Regarding claim 4, Brennan teaches that such a foamed article may be a mattress (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Talalay teaches diluting the composition with water (col. 3 ln. 40-43).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Talalay teaches a rubber solids content of about 40% (col. 4 ln. 7-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talalay, US 3031427, in view of Brennan et al., US 2022/0227918 A1, and further in view of Kordiak, US 3523996.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Talalay differ from the present invention in that Talalay does not teach creating a vacuum in the mold, flash freezing the latex, and directing carbon dioxide into the mold prior to curing with heat. Kordiak, however, teaches that such latexes may be caused to expand by creating a vacuum in the mold (col. 3 ln. 1-6) followed by flash freezing and directing carbon dioxide into the latex to cause it to gel, followed by curing via heating (col. 1 ln. 51-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a vacuum in the mold, flash freeze the latex, direct carbon dioxide into the mold, and cure the latex via heat when practicing the method of Talalay, because Kordiak explicitly teaches such a method to be appropriate when making foamed latex products like those of Talalay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
