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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-19 and 30 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 24, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line of claim 3, the term “resins” should be changed to --resin--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,302,487 to Fujita et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0032731 to Oswald et al. With respect to claim 1, Fujita et al. ‘487 shows the claimed limitations of a vehicle seat cushion system (S) comprising: a seat cushion (2) comprising at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b) (as shown in Figures 1, 2 & 10-12 and as described in column
6, lines 24-28 and in column 8, lines 45-52), wherein the seat cushion (2) is formed of a unitary mesh (8) of thermoplastic resin (as shown in Figures 3 & 4 and as described in column 6, lines 34-44 and in column 7, lines 16-18), and a weld formed at least partially along mating surfaces of the at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b) (also as shown in Figures 10-12 and as described in column 8, lines 45-52). However, with further respect to claim 1 and with respect to claim 3, Fujita et al. ‘487 does not specifically disclose the use of expanded thermoplastic resin strands, and wherein each of the at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b) is formed of thermoplastic resin strands. Oswald et al. ‘731 provides the basic teaching of foam products which include expanded thermoplastic in the form of strands (as described on page 5, in paragraph 0083 and on page 6, in paragraph 0083). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the unitary mesh of the vehicle seat cushion system disclosed in Fujita et al. ‘487 with the expanded thermoplastic resin strands taught in Oswald et al. ‘731 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of “[providing] additional improvements in properties including but not limited to processability, upper service temperature, modulus, compressive strength, hardness, toughness, increased foam cell size, and aesthetics of the final foams or articles fabricated therefrom” as taught by Oswald et al. ‘731 (page 5, paragraph 0074).
With respect to claim 2, Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the mating surfaces comprise a denser concentration of the thermoplastic resin strands. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle seat cushion system of Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 with mating surfaces comprising a denser
concentration of thermoplastic resin strands, since varying the respective concentrations of resin strands in the at least two mesh portions such that each of the mating surfaces comprise a denser concentration of the thermoplastic resin strands would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Fujita et al. ‘487 further discloses wherein a first mesh portion (8a) of the at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b) comprises a first mesh segment, and wherein a second mesh portion (8b) of the at least two mesh portions comprises a second mesh segment (as shown in Figures 10-12 and as described in column 8, lines 45-52).
With respect to claim 5, Fujita et al. ‘487 further discloses the use of a skin (32) (as shown in Figures 10-13 and as described in column 8, lines 63-66), but does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the skin (32) is welded to at least one of the at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle seat cushion system of Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 with a skin which is welded to at least one of the at least two mesh portions, since the use of a known technique, such as welding, for attaching fabric sections together would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Fujita et al. ‘487 further disclose the use of a second skin (42) (as shown in Figure 13 and as described in column 9, lines 6-27), but does not specifically disclose wherein the second skin (42) is welded to the first skin (32). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the
vehicle seat cushion system of Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 with a second skin which is welded to the first skin, since the use of a known technique, such as welding, for attaching fabric sections together would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Fujita et al. ‘487 further discloses wherein the weld extends along a region of the at least two mesh portions (8a & 8b) as a seam (also as shown in Figures 10-12 and as described in column 8, lines 45-52).
With respect to claim 8, Fujita et al. ‘487 further discloses the use of a trim component (32) (as shown in Figures 10-13 and as described in column 8, lines 63-66), but does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the trim component (32) is welded to the unitary mesh (8). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle seat cushion system of Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 with a trim component which is welded to the unitary mesh, since the use of a known technique, such as welding, for attaching fabric sections together would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 9-12, Fujita et al. ‘487 further discloses wherein the trim component (32) further comprises a tab (34) to attach to another trim component (as shown in Figure 12 and as described in column 8, lines 66-67 and in column 9, lines 1-2); wherein the unitary mesh (8) and the trim component (32) are formed from a similar recyclable material (i.e., elements 8 and 32 are formed from types of plastic as described in column 6, lines 45-47 and column 7, lines 16-18, with plastic being a recyclable material); and a support (38) welded to the unitary mesh (8), wherein the support (38) further comprises a trim carrier (i.e., support 38 engages wires 22a & 22b which carry trim component 32) (as shown in Figure 13 and as described in column 9, lines 11-17).
With respect to claims 13, 14 and 16, Fujita et al. ‘487 as modified by Oswald et al. ‘731 further discloses wherein the weld comprises a consistent quantity of strands (i.e., mesh portions 8a & 8b are joined by vibration welding as described in column 8, lines 45-52, which neither adds nor subtracts strands and therefore keeps the number of strands consistent); wherein the seat cushion (2) does not comprise adhesives (i.e., the cushion components are joined by welding or sewing as described in column 8, lines 45-52 & 63-65 and in column 9, lines 11-17, and does not employ adhesives); and a seat frame (16) (as shown in Figures 9-13 and as described in column 8, lines 20-29 & 45-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent No. 6,545,094 to Oswald et al. is the corresponding patent to the Oswald et al. ‘731 reference mentioned in the preceding paragraph; both of these patent documents disclose the use of expanded thermoplastic resin strands. All of the other remaining U.S. and foreign patent documents listed in the attached PTO-892 form are to the same inventors of this application (i.e., Hale et al.) and collectively disclose the use of cushion assemblies comprising a unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands and a weld formed along the mesh.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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, Justin C Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights