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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 17 have been amended. This communication is a Second Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 2/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites the limitation, “to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer”. This limitation is rendered indefinite and it is unclear what the meaning of substantially is in this context. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation, “detached from the cover”. However, there is no prior mention of a cover and the cover lacks proper antecedent basis. Examiner suggests incorporating proper antecedent basis or removing the limitation in its entirety. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake (JP 2021017148 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Miyake discloses a multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100), comprising: an outer shell (cushion body 20); a first side including a breathable chamber defined by a pliable polymer film and containing foam beads (See Fig. 3-4, inner bag bodies 22, 24 containing foam bead materials, made of thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, and having air permeability), the foam beads flowable within the breathable chamber to enable the first side to conform to an object placed thereagainst (“cushion body 20 is deformed due to the seating of a seated person” due to flowable bead material), force of the object on the foam beads increasing a coefficient of friction between the foam beads and increasing a rigidity of a portion of the first side against which the object is placed (See Fig. 3 and 5, outer bag body and inner bag bodies generate a reaction force when vent 282 is closed due to weight from the user and compressibility of the bead materials); and a second side opposite from the first side and comprising a pliable bladder containing lubricated microspheres (See Fig. 3-4, inner bag body 26 comprising bead material 261).
Regarding Claim 18, Miyake discloses the multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100) of claim 17, wherein the foam beads comprise polyethylene beads (bead material is made of a spherical foam and a resin of polyethylene).
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 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Thomas (US 20010000829 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyake discloses a multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100), comprising: (See Fig. 3, inner bag bodies 22, 24, 26); an air cell beneath the micro-adjustable layer (See Fig. 3, outer bag body 28 below inner bag bodies); and a lower support layer beneath the air cell and conformable to a surface upon which the multi-layer cushion is placed (See Fig. 3, seat body 30), {each of} the micro-adjustable layer comprising compressible beads (See Fig. 3, beads 221, 241, 261), at least one of the micro-adjustable layer and the lower support layer including a breathable chamber defined by a pliable polymer film and containing the compressible beads (“inner bag body has air permeability and is made of an elastomer”) and enabling the compressible beads to flow when uncompressed (See Fig. 3, “the bead material (bead material 281 described later and the bead material housed inside the plurality of inner bag bodies) is compressed, deformed, and moved by the seating load inside the outer bag body 28. Then, due to the compression deformation and movement of the bead material, air flows out from the inside of the outer bag body 28 to the outside through the holes”), the air cell at least partially isolating a conformability of the lower support layer from a conformability of the micro-adjustable layer and spreading the force of the body part across the lower support layer, the force of the body part increasing a coefficient of friction between the compressible beads (See Fig. 3 and 5, outer bag body and inner bag bodies generate a reaction force when vent 282 is closed due to weight from the user and compressibility of the bead materials).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miyake fails to explicitly disclose the lower support layer comprising compressible beads.
However, Thomas teaches the lower support layer comprising compressible beads (See Fig. 4B, 4C, and 7, lower layer 186 comprising compressible beads 194).
PNG
media_image3.png
384
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
272
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake by adding the compressible beads of Thomas to the lower support layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “rigidly assume the shape held by vacuum bead bag 180”; (Thomas, [0095]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Miyake, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion (seating portion 100) of claim 1, wherein the micro-adjustable layer is positioned between but remains detached from the cover and the air cell (See Fig. 3, inner bag bodies positioned between outer bag body 28, but detached).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Thomas (US 20010000829 A1), further in view of Woolfson (US 20020040502 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Miyake, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion (seating portion 100) of claim 1.
Miyake in view of Thomas fails to teach wherein the breathable chamber comprises an antimicrobial filter.
However, Woolfson teaches wherein the breathable chamber comprises an antimicrobial filter (5, “filter 5, which prevents ingress of bacteria into the cover 2”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake in view of Thomas by adding the antimicrobial filter taught by Woolfson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the “ingress of bacteria into the cover”; (Woolfson, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Miyake, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion (seating portion 100) of claim 1.
Miyake fails to explicitly teach wherein the compressible beads comprise expanded polyethylene beads.
However, Ishida teaches wherein the compressible beads comprise expanded polyethylene beads (“expanded resin beads made of styrene-based resin, polyethylene-based resin”; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake by adding the added expanded polyethylene beads as taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to exhibit particularly outstanding effects for prevention of an unusual sound and for a more preferable feel”; (Ishida, [0034]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Miyake (JP 2021017148 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramp discloses a positioner (100 body support system) for placement beneath a chest of a subject while the subject is in a prone position to assist a subject in breathing, comprising: a first cushion (110 lift cushion) having a first width and a first height (See Fig. 7 for dimensions); a second cushion (105 chest support) adjacent to {and superimposed with the first cushion} (See Fig. 2, adjacent cushions) and having a second width and a second height (See Fig. 7 for dimensions and positioning); and a third cushion (110 lift cushion) adjacent to {and superimposed with} the second cushion (See Fig. 2, adjacent cushions), on an opposite side of the second cushion from the first cushion, and having a third width and a third height, the second width being less than the first width and the third width (See Fig. 7 for dimensions and positioning, second width is less than the first width and the third width).
PNG
media_image5.png
436
722
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ramp fails to explicitly disclose a second cushion superimposed with the first cushion and a third cushion superimposed with the second cushion and the second height being less than the first height and the third height.
However, Miyake teaches a second cushion superimposed with the first cushion; and a third cushion superimposed with the second cushion (See Fig. 3, inner bag body 22 superimposed with outer bag body 28 and seat body 30); and the second height being less than the first height and the third height (See Fig. 3, inner bag body 22 having less height than body 28 and body 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ramp with the cushion orientation as taught by Miyake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the thickness of the outer bag body 28 is formed to be thicker than any of the plurality of inner bag bodies. As a result, inside the outer bag body 28, the outflow of air from the inside to the outside of the plurality of inner bag bodies and the inflow of air from the outside to the inside are performed in a preferable state”; (Miyake). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner (100 body support system) of claim 11, wherein each of the first cushion, the second cushion, and the third cushion comprises an air chamber (“component material may also comprise air”; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner (100 body support system) of claim 11, wherein each of the first cushion and the third cushion comprises a pliable, breathable chamber containing a compressible, conformable medium (“component material may also comprise air and/or a discrete gas such as nitrogen in an inflatable support”; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner (100 body support system) of claim 13, wherein the second cushion comprises an air chamber (“component material may also comprise air”; [0044]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Miyake (JP 2021017148 A), further in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner (100 body support system) of claim 13.
Ramp fails to explicitly teach wherein force of a body part of the subject against the compressible, conformable medium compresses the compressible conformable medium and increases a rigidity of the first cushion and/or the third cushion.
However, Miyake teaches wherein force of a body part of the subject against the compressible, conformable medium compresses the compressible conformable medium and increases a rigidity of the first cushion and/or the third cushion (See Fig. 3 and 5, outer bag body and inner bag bodies generate a reaction force when vent 282 is closed due to weight from the user and compressibility of the bead materials).
Ramp in view of Miyake fails to explicitly teach the compressible medium flows when uncompressed.
However, Ishida teaches the compressible medium flows when uncompressed (“beads are made easily flowable”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ramp in view of Miyake by adding the flowable compressible medium taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a cushioning body”; (Ishida, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Miyake (JP 2021017148 A), in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1), further in view of Woolfson (US 20020040502 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner (100 body support system) of claim 11.
Ramp in view of Miyake in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach the at least one breathable chamber comprises a filter.
However, Woolfson teaches the at least one breathable chamber comprises a filter (5, “filter 5, which prevents ingress of bacteria into the cover 2”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ramp in view of Miyake in view of Ishida by adding the filter taught by Woolfson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the “ingress of bacteria”; (Woolfson, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Miyake discloses the multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100) of claim 18.
Miyake fails to explicitly teach wherein the lubricated microspheres comprise microspheres dispersed throughout a lubricant.
However, Ishida teaches wherein the lubricated microspheres comprise microspheres dispersed throughout a lubricant (“expanded resin beads filling in the second cushioning body, the content of the fluidity accelerator”; [0036]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake by adding lubricant taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a lubricant for the expanded resin beads, and can act in preventing occurrence of an unusual sound attributable to the expanded resin beads rubbing mutually upon fluidization”; (Ishida, [0036]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1), further in view of Thomas (US 20010000829 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Miyake, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100) of claim 19.
Miyake in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach an air chamber superimposed between but uncoupled from the first side and the second side.
However, Thomas teaches an air chamber superimposed between but uncoupled from the first side and the second side (See Fig. 10, interior region 156 including bladder 146).
PNG
media_image6.png
356
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake in view of Ishida by adding the air chamber as taught by Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to maximize the surface area of contact between the patient and patient-support surface”; (Thomas, [0070]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, Miyake, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion (See Fig. 3, seating portion 100) of claim 20.
Miyake in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach wherein the air chamber has smaller lateral dimensions than the first side and the second side.
However, Thomas teaches wherein the air chamber has smaller lateral dimensions than the first side and the second side (See Fig. 10, interior region 156 and bladder 146 laterally smaller than the layers above and below).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Miyake in view of Ishida by adding the air chamber with smaller dimensions as taught by Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to maximize the surface area of contact between the patient and patient-support surface”; (Thomas, [0070]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-21 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are deemed allowable subject matter over the prior art of record because the teachings as a whole do not tech nor render obvious the combinations set forth in Dependent Claims 2 and 3.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, the prior art of Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Thomas (US 20010000829 A1) teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1. However, the prior art of Miyake in view of Thomas and other references of record fail to explicitly teach, without incorporating impermissible hindsight bias the other of the micro-adjustable layer and the lower support layer comprises a bladder carrying lubricated microspheres.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, the prior art of Miyake (JP 2021017148 A) in view of Thomas (US 20010000829 A1) teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1. However, the prior art of Miyake in view of Thomas and other references of record fail to explicitly teach, without incorporating impermissible hindsight bias wherein the lower support layer includes the breathable chamber carrying the compressible beads and the force of the body part on the micro-adjustable layer and the air cell forces the compressible beads together to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Massman (US 20070277320 A1): Massman discloses a design concept used in seat cushion applications for a conforming air cell device where air pathways are compressed when subjected to force.
Rensink (US 20130111672 A1): Rensink discloses a multi-layer mattress comprising a matrix core of foam elements.
Pearce (US 20210127865 A1): Pearce discloses a gelatinous elastomer (A-B-A triblock copolymer) that can enhance friction in surfaces.
Aou (US 20210267382 A1): Aou discloses a coated flexible open-cell polyurethane foam structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights