DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed December 29th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 2-13, 15-24, and 27-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome several of the Abstract Objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 24, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. However, at least one Specification Objection remains standing. Additionally, although examiner acknowledges the entry of the replacement sheet provided, such respectfully is not found to be without new matter presented due to reasons provided for in the pertinent section alongside features/matters still lacking from the drawings, and therefore the Drawing Rejections must be respectfully maintained. In addition, applicant’s amendments to the claims have necessitated additional 112b Rejections due to compounding issues of indefiniteness in and/or construction, and applicant’s amendments to the specification have necessitated new Specification Objections thereto.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "method" of claims 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Particularly, a method should provide a sequence of steps as otherwise ‘designing’ would otherwise seem to merely necessitate that the apparatus is provided which must be so designed. However, it is considered that the manner applicant has portrayed is respectfully not possessed by applicant, as applicant does not invoke the term ‘step’ or sequence of steps, and the claim only appears to nebulously invoke “designing” aspects of an invention to be produced, but such ‘steps’ would appear to occur with a degree of simultaneous nature, not a linear sequence of steps to be fulfilled one after the next. The drawings are considered to introduce new matter and also respectfully do not provide for all claimed features (e.g. designing to buckle, to include notches, to include voids, alongside “and/or” constructions). Furthermore, it is respectfully considered at a minimum that “designing” a feature expected to be so implemented would precede any acts of stiffening, (because once the material is set is applicant stating that a material is provided by the stiffening, and thereafter a design is considered (to be so ‘designed’/’designing’) but never formally implemented or facilitated? (such as by cutting, punching, molding, etc?). Such matters are respectfully remanded to applicant to resolve; however, the replacement drawings at a minimum are considered to introduce new matter, and the drawings are objected for not illustrating all features claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because purported merits (e.g. "shapes, sizes, and positions that . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed December 29th, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The new additions/amendments of paragraph [0043], introduces considerably new and what appears unpossessed subject matter, by particularly introducing a sequence of linear steps that applicant does not respectfully appear to have possession of. Where the only support appears to be claims 24 and partly claim 28, however, the supposed ‘sequence’ offered does not appear to define any particular sequence of steps (such as which parts are “designed” before others), where “designing” is considered to be relatively a mental process of predetermining a characteristic, but may go so far as to even ascribe to a possibly abstract subject matter (which if found so would necessitate a Rejection under 101). It is further considered that the drawing conflict the ordinary understanding of implementation, for while no formal sequence is ascribed between any such ‘designings’, it is considered that “designing” would precede the only active step of ‘stiffening’, otherwise the claim is completely directed to a mental process wherein there would be a material provided and the subject matter seeking to be claimed is, in simplest terms “the contemplation of altering the stiffened members, as by designing”, but never so claimed to actively be implementing those contemplations (such as by cutting, punching, welding, melting, extruding, or even forming and so on). Further explanation and clarity are respectfully requested but the subject matter amended into the claims (and the figures alongside) is considered to be presenting new matter and should be cancelled. It is Examiner’s respectful consideration that cancellation of the subject matter is considerably likely without considerable clarity and explanation offered where applicant is drawing support for the drawings and the correspondent descriptions thereof; as examiner respectfully cannot conceive a drawing and offer remedy or suggestion that would broach and ameliorate the nebulous consideration of a method comprising of “designings” of multiple aspects that needn’t be in any particular order, but as the apparent claimed subject matter being a method must be shown somehow. Where there are additional considerations of how applicant would portray ‘and/or’ considerations of the claim (are they optional approaches as by “or”? or necessary approaches as by “and”?), such considerations are further considered in the 112b section hereafter.
Applicant is otherwise required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 24, and 27-28 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.
With regard to claim 24, the limitation “and/or” is recited twice. There is confusion in the consideration as to whether “and/or” should mean “or” (such that only one or the other is necessitated for infringement) or mean “and” (such that both are necessitated for infringement). Particularly, in the manner the claim is written now, it’s unclear if firstly, the claim necessitates both designing enlarged junctions and designing the plurality of walls to have voids; or whether the claim necessitates one or the other of: designing enlarged junctions or designing the plurality of walls to have voids. Where one is considered optional. Furthermore, it’s unclear whether both notches in the edges and windows in the wall is necessitated, or either notches in the edges or windows in the wall is necessitated.
For the purposes of examination, the and/or limitations is construed as an “or” consideration, while the ‘notches’ are considered synonymous with “windows” (a window is a type of notch or otherwise a notch is a type of small window).
The limitation considers the ‘or’ consideration to avoid a substantial duplicate of claim 27, where in claim 27, the limitation “comprising stiffening at least portions of the plurality of interconnected walls and designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include voids” is recited. The limitation respectfully would otherwise be a redundancy of claim 24 that already recites “comprising: stiffening at least portions of the plurality of interconnected walls… and designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include voids.”
Claim 28 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being dependent on an indefinite claim (at least claim 24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 3-13, and 16-24, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030110567); hereafter "Kawamura" and Pearce et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190150632); hereafter "Pearce". With Pearce used as merely a teaching reference on the categories of substances and chemicals already used in Kawamura for the anticipation of claims 9-11.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14, 24-25, and 29) a cushioning element ( as illustrated in FIG. 29), comprising: a plurality of interconnected walls (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 11 and 12) formed from an elastomeric material (Abstract: “formed by using elastomer”), defining a plurality of hollow columns (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 11-12), with each hollow column of the plurality of hollow columns including: at least one stiffening feature (the larger tapered bottom of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12); and at least one void (300c; FIG. 11-12) in at least one wall of the plurality of interconnected walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14), wherein the at least one stiffening feature comprises an enlarged junction (correspondent the bottom most enlarged tapered corner of 300b3; FIG. 12) defining a corner of each hollow column at a location where walls of the plurality of interconnected walls join each other (As portrayed through FIGS. 11-12), each dimension across each end of the enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the walls joined at the enlarged junction (As eminently demonstrated, the bottom most junction is larger than a thickness of the entirety of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein each corner of each hollow column comprises the enlarged junction (At the bottom must junction thereof as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein the at least one stiffening feature is defined by the elastomeric material (pre [0091]: “For the elastomer used in the present invention, the polystyrene based thermoplastic elastomer is especially preferably used because of its high flexibility and durability. The elastomer used in the present invention has Shore A hardness of 20 to 40, preferably 25 to 35. When the elastomer having the above described hardness is used for diaphragms for a bed cushion having a structure where thin and vertical diaphragms are arranged in a lattice, the diaphragms are buckled when load is applied to thereby provide a cushion that causes no feeling of touching a bottom, and that has flexibility, high absorption of light load and high durability”).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein the at least one void comprises an opening in at least one wall of the plurality of interconnected walls (As illustrated in FIG. 11-12, the void is a circular opening in the plurality of interconnected walls).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 5, wherein the opening comprises a notch in an edge of the at least one wall (wherein as illustrated in FIG. 11 and 14, the opening is a circular notch in the outer edges formed of the at least one wall).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 5, wherein the opening comprises a window in the at least one wall (As illustrated in FIGS. 11-14 wherein the void is an opening that is itself a window in the at least one wall that facilitates air flow therethrough).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein the elastomeric material comprises a gel (per [0175]: “the cushion is formed using gel made by adding a softener to the elastomer as a cushion formed by the mold for a cushion”).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 8, wherein the gel comprises a block copolymer (per [0085]: “The polystyrene based thermoplastic elastomer is a block copolymer… styrene-ethylene propylene-styrene block copolymer (SEPS)”) and a plasticizer (per [0092]: “mixing lubricant into the elastomer, and removability in forming can be improved. The lubricant includes hydrocarbon based lubricant”). Where it is considered that Pearce teaches that styrene-ethylene propylene-styrene block copolymer (SEPS) is a block copolymer and hydrocarbon lubricants/fluids and paraffins are plasticizers in [0043] “A-B-A triblock copolymer such as styrene ethylene propylene styrene (SEPS)” and [0044] “plasticizers, such as hydrocarbon fluids. For example, elastomeric materials may include… white paraffinic mineral oils”, to which Kawamura provides both (per [0085] and [0092]). It is therefore considered Kawamura provides the requisite chemicals inherently as Pearce classifies them to.
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura discloses ([0085]) the cushioning element of claim 9, wherein the block copolymer comprises a triblock copolymer. Where per [0085] of Kawamura, provides a “block copolymer… styrene-ethylene propylene-styrene block copolymer (SEPS)” where Pearce defines in [0043] “A-B-A triblock copolymer such as styrene ethylene propylene styrene (SEPS)”; therefore, Kawamura avails the requisite material inherently.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura discloses ([0085]) the cushioning element of claim 10, wherein the triblock copolymer comprises an A-B-A triblock copolymer. Where per [0085] of Kawamura, provides a “block copolymer… styrene-ethylene propylene-styrene block copolymer (SEPS)” where Pearce defines in [0043] “A-B-A triblock copolymer such as styrene ethylene propylene styrene (SEPS)”; therefore, Kawamura avails the requisite material inherently.
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein the plurality of hollow columns buckle when at least a portion of the cushioning element is placed under a load (per [0025]: “The above described cushion has high absorption, but when the diaphragms having received load are buckled to thereby achieve absorption” and [0091]: “he elastomer having the above described hardness is used for diaphragms for a bed cushion having a structure where thin and vertical diaphragms are arranged in a lattice, the diaphragms are buckled when load is applied to thereby provide a cushion that causes no feeling of touching a bottom”).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14, 24-25, and 29) a cushioning element (as illustrated in FIG. 29), comprising: a plurality of interconnected walls (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 11 and 12) formed from an elastomeric material (Abstract: “formed by using elastomer”), defining a plurality of hollow columns (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 11-12), with each hollow column of the plurality of hollow columns including: at least one void (300c; FIG. 11-12) in a wall of the plurality of interconnected walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14); wherein the at least one void comprises at least one notch formed in an edge of the wall (wherein as illustrated in FIG. 11 and 14, the opening is a circular notch in the outer edges formed of the at least one wall).
Regarding claim 16, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 13, wherein the at least one void comprises a window formed in the wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14 wherein the void is an opening that is itself a window in the at least one wall that facilitates air flow therethrough).
Regarding claim 17, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 13, wherein the at least one void is formed in a plurality of walls of the plurality of interconnected walls defining each hollow column (As illustrated in FIGS. 11-14, the void is formed in all walls of the plurality of interconnected walls).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 17, comprising at least one void in each wall defining each hollow column (As illustrated in FIGS. 11-14, the void is formed in each wall of the plurality of walls).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 13, further comprising: at least one stiffening feature (the larger tapered bottom of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 20, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 19, wherein the at least one stiffening feature comprises an enlarged junction (correspondent the bottom most enlarged tapered corner of 300b3; FIG. 12) at a corner of each hollow column at a location where walls of the plurality of interconnected walls join each other (As portrayed through FIGS. 11-12), each dimension across each end of the enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the plurality of interconnected walls joined at the enlarged junction (As eminently demonstrated, the bottom most junction is larger than a thickness of the entirety of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 19, wherein the at least one stiffening feature comprises an enlarged junction (correspondent the bottom most enlarged tapered corner of 300b3; FIG. 12) at a plurality of corners of each hollow column of the plurality of hollow columns (As portrayed through FIGS. 11-12), each dimension across each end of the enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the plurality of interconnected walls joined at the enlarged junction (As eminently demonstrated, the bottom most junction is larger than a thickness of the entirety of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 22, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 19, wherein the at least one stiffening feature comprises an enlarged junction (correspondent the bottom most enlarged tapered corner of 300b3; FIG. 12) at each corner of each hollow column of the plurality of hollow columns (as portrayed through FIGS. 11-12), each dimension across each end of the enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the plurality of interconnected walls joined at the enlarged junction (as eminently demonstrated, the bottom most junction is larger than a thickness of the entirety of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 23, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 13, wherein the plurality of hollow columns buckle when at least a portion of the cushioning element is placed under a load (per [0025]: “The above described cushion has high absorption, but when the diaphragms having received load are buckled to thereby achieve absorption” and [0091]: “he elastomer having the above described hardness is used for diaphragms for a bed cushion having a structure where thin and vertical diaphragms are arranged in a lattice, the diaphragms are buckled when load is applied to thereby provide a cushion that causes no feeling of touching a bottom”).
Regarding claim 24, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) a method for designing a cushioning element with a plurality of interconnected walls defining an array of hollow columns (As illustrated in FIGS. 11-14), comprising: stiffening at least portions of the plurality of interconnected walls to enable minimization of a thickness of the cushioning element to provide predetermined compression and rebound characteristics (per either [0091] concerning use of material that produces hardness and stiffness thereof; or alternatively per FIGS. 12 that necessitates both designing and producing the larger tapered bottom of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12), wherein stiffening at least portions of the plurality of interconnected walls comprises designing enlarged junctions at corners of the hollow columns to stiffen the corners (correspondent the bottom most enlarged tapered corners of 300b3; FIG. 12), each dimension across each end of each enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the plurality of interconnected walls joined at the enlarged junction (as eminently demonstrated, the bottom most junction is larger than a thickness of the entirety of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12); and/or designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include voids (as illustrate in FIGS. 11-12 providing the voids 300c, such product provided begets production that itself begets designing); wherein designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include voids comprises designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include notches in edges of the plurality of interconnected walls (wherein as illustrated in FIG. 11 and 14, the opening is a circular notch in the outer edges formed of the at least one wall) and/or windows in the plurality of interconnected walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14 wherein the void is an opening that is itself a window in the at least one wall that facilitates air flow therethrough). It is considered that by providing the invention so demonstrated in FIGS. 11-12, the prior art of Kawamura necessitates a condition of designing the cushion to thereby produce the cushion.
Regarding claim 27, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the method of claim 24, comprising stiffening at least portions of the plurality of interconnected walls and designing the plurality of interconnected walls to include voids. Where Kawamura provides both that necessitate design therein to arrive at the complete assembly of FIGS. 11-12), with stiffening provided per either [0091] concerning use of material that produces hardness and stiffness thereof; or alternatively per FIGS. 12 that necessitates both designing and producing the larger tapered bottom of the walls as illustrated in FIG. 12; and with designing the plurality of interconnected walls to provide voids is eminently demonstrated in FIG. 11-12 where the voids are clearly demonstrated.
Regarding claim 28, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the method of claim 24, further comprising: designing the array of hollow columns to buckle when placed under a load (per [0025]: “The above described cushion has high absorption, but when the diaphragms having received load are buckled to thereby achieve absorption” and [0091]: “he elastomer having the above described hardness is used for diaphragms for a bed cushion having a structure where thin and vertical diaphragms are arranged in a lattice, the diaphragms are buckled when load is applied to thereby provide a cushion that causes no feeling of touching a bottom”; and where FIG. 13 explicitly demonstrates such buckling).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Bayer et al. (German App. No. DE102012103036A1); hereafter “Bayer”.
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 13.
However, Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one notch is formed in a bottom edge of the wall
Regardless, Bayer teaches (FIGS. 4, particularly FIG. 4e and 4g) a buckling/deformation resistance member wherein at least one notch is formed in a bottom edge of the wall (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 4e and 4g).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the bottom edge located notch in Bayer (FIG. 4e and 4g) into or substituted for the notch in Kawamura (as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14). Where the results would have been predictable as both Kawamura and Bayer concern buckling members in person supporting apparatuses (Bayer: as illustrated in FIG. 2 and 3/ Kawamura: as illustrated in FIG. 13). Where Kawamura would continue to facilitate a supportive buckling member as Bayer advantageously acknowledges “By means of the recesses to, the damping behavior of the fastening element is adjusted, as a result of which progressive damping, i.e. toward the end of the damping travel, a greater resistance to deformation building and thus more strongly damping properties of the fastening elements can be achieved” [0059].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 11), filed December 29th, 2025, with respect to several Abstract Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Abstract Objections (concerning all those with exception of the remaining "shapes, sizes, and positions that affect an overall density and weight of the cushioning element while maintaining cushioning characteristics") of September 24th, 2025 has been withdrawn. It is respectfully recommended for the remaining Abstract Objection to simply state “The voids have shape, sizes, and positions that affect an overall density and weight of the cushioning element”, but omitting/cancelling the “while maintaining cushioning characteristics” which still appears to be a purported merit, while the former citation is merely the mechanical features of the invention without much speculative additional attribution. It is respectfully suggested further because any mention of ‘maintaining the characteristics of the cushion’ is attributed to the method, not necessarily the apparatus (in so far as the claims); where the only other instance of this ‘maintain’ is again attributed seemingly only to the method (per [0002]: “specifically, to techniques for maintaining the cushioning characteristics” bolding added for emphasis)
Applicant's arguments filed December 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Objections to the Drawing, Examiner respectfully acknowledges applicant’s attempt to try to resolve the previous Drawing Objection of September 24th, 2025; and appreciates such was likely considered at the time the most expedient resolution, and examiner further acknowledges that examiner indicated formerly “Particularly a method should provide a sequence of steps or otherwise ‘designing’ would otherwise seem to merely necessitate that the apparatus is provided which must be so designed”. However, Examiner cannot foresee every possibility of resolution applicant will attempt to undertake and respectfully but unfortunately upon review, the amendments offered do in fact introduce new matter by providing a sequence of steps that was not previously provided for. Particularly, the ‘designings’ of claims 24-28 are observed in the totality of applicant’s disclosure to have given no weight or priority of ordering or sequence of procedure of consideration, and alongside the additional considerations of “and/or” previously discusses, makes conception of a diagram in the current reading of the claims difficult to parse and countenance to those respectfully by applicant. Examiner respectfully but unfortunately is unsure of how Applicant’s may resolve a nebulous type of consideration of multiple designings in a method. However, at a minimum and factually so, it would seem as though the “stiffening” would proceed any “designing”, as the ‘stiffening’ appears to be how the apparatus is ‘formed’ or produced. Elsewise the claims are possibly and potentially problematically seeming to claim a method of designing a provided element, but no actionable/active verbiage terms that would indicate actions are being supplied to the apparatus, and the claims could potentially be seen as mental processes/abstract subject matter (which would necessitate a 101 Rejection thereto if so. As the invention would be seemingly akin to ‘designing an art logo’ by contemplation; due to the general definitions of designing being “practicing forethought” (Merriam Webster: “designing”, adjective, definition 1). While “design” possesses definitions of “to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan” “to conceive and plan out in the mind” “to have as a purpose” “to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of” “to draw the plans for” “the process of planning how something will look, happen, be made, etc. : the process of designing something” “a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down” “deliberate purposive planning” “a preliminary sketch or outline showing something that is being planned or created” “a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment)” (Merriam Webster: “design” nouns, verbs, and intransitive verbs, definitions 1-4b/ 1-2, 1-5b). Examiner respectfully draws to consideration that seemingly all terms of ‘designing’ in the immediate Merriam Webster’s dictionary concerns aspects and approaches and mental processes of the mind. It is considered perhaps the term is incorrect, but as a method presently the term is permitted, but considerations are made the claims may be within the terms 101 would address. Further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested and otherwise amendment should be rendered to claim 24, but otherwise the Drawings are not found presently to provide no new matter, and respectfully should be cancelled/replaced. However, as stressed before Examiner is unable to offer a remedy that would demonstrate the claimed features of the method without possibly introducing new matter presently.
Additionally, applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 12-15) that Kawamura fails to avail an enlarged junction defining a corner of each hollow column at a location where walls of the plurality of interconnected walls join each other, each dimension across each end of the enlarged junction exceeding a thickness of each wall of the walls joined at the enlarged junction. And that applicant’s claims necessitate “the proper reference point for wall thickness is the thickness “of the walls joined at the enlarged junction”. However, examiner disagrees with this narrower characterization, than the claims avail, as applicant’s claims specifically claims firstly “at a location”, and where such location is where “walls join each other”, and furthermore necessitate that the enlarged junction “defining a corner of each hollow column”. Respectfully but notably, a corner is achieved in the bottom most surface, where the corners that are produced at the widest part of the wall, are in fact joined in a lattice/box columnar structure (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 11, wherein the wall clearly possesses a corner that the walls are joined at, and the corner is defined at, and where such is the thickest part of the wall and therefore the enlarged junction exceeds a thickness of each wall of the walls joined at the enlarged junction by purposefully being the thickest/widest part of the wall and therefore exceeding the thickness of each wall as FIG. 12 demonstrates.
Respectfully, applicant’s claims to not necessitate the vertically oriented seam between walls as applicant alleges, but only necessitates a corner, the walls joined thereat, and the thickness of the enlarged junction being the largest/widest/thickest part of the wall, which Kawamura respectfully readily appears to portray between at least FIGS. 11-12.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the entirety of the walls are not joined at the enlarged junction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Again, to reiterate, applicant’s claims only necessitate a location, such location where walls join each other, and such being in a corner. A corner, even a bottom located corner, would still achieve the configurations necessitated by the claim, and such junction further is the widest, largest part of the wall, thereby availing a dimension exceeding the thickness of each wall. It’s also pertinent to note that applicant’s claims do not necessitate the “entirety” of the wall, or that the walls be consistently thick throughout, but only, “a thickness” of the wall, needs to be exceeded by the enlarged junction. Respectfully, the enlarged junction would exceed ‘a thickness of the wall at the top’, or ‘a thickness of the wall’s void’, but in the instant application, being the widest most portion of the wall, indeed exceeds the entirety of the wall’s thickness.
Therefore, Examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Kawamura fails to avail the claimed features of the invention.
With regard to applicant’s allegations (Remarks: pages 15-18) concerning that Kawamura fails to avail a notch formed in an edge of the wall. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as Kawamura clearly provides for what can be considered a separate notch of the walls in the outermost facing notches, where such notches to such are indeed on the outer edge of the walls. The claims do not necessitate that the edge is defined an edge of the profile of the wall/each wall (a top/bottom/left/right edge of the wall as ascribed in claim 15). Where the notch is ascribed as the void, and such void is illustrated on the outer periphery or otherwise “edge”.
Therefore, examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Kawamura fails to avail the claimed features of the invention.
Additionally, Applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 16-18) that Bayer cannot qualify as prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as for consideration/indicia of analogous art, Bayer was particularly provided by applicant in the IDS received January 30th, 2024. While further on it’s on merits, it is considered there is an analogous consideration between Bayer and Kawamura, where as was previously acknowledged in the rejection of record, Bayer and Kawamura are both drawn to buckling members of person support apparatuses particularly. Which is furthermore of substantial consideration to applicant’s own invention and purposes thereof (where the claims particularly invoke “designing the array of hollow columns to buckle when placed under a load”. Examiner respectfully requests clarity how Bayer, being a buckling column for a person supporting apparatus is not germane to the scope of applicant’s claimed invention as a whole? A person of ordinary skill in the art of applicant’s invention would consider the general art of buckling members when considering how to design, stiffen, and import voids thereto in the construction thereof. Therefore, Bayer respectfully is considered to be analogous prior art to the claimed invention and claim 15 remains rejected under 102 with Kawamura in view of Peace (as a teaching reference) and Bayer.
Respectfully, claims 1, 3-13, 15-24, and 27-28 remain rejected for reasons and rationales of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673