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, 16-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Drawing and Specification Objection alongside each and every 112b Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 7th, 2026 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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 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) 1, 3-5, 7-13, 16-17, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030110567); hereafter "Kawamura" and Pearce et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190150632); hereafter "Pearce" and Bayer et al. (German App. No. DE102012103036A1); hereafter “Bayer”. 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).
However, Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one void extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls.
Regardless, Bayer teaches (FIGS. 4, particularly FIG. 4b and 4f) a buckling/deformation resistance member wherein at least one void extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f).
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].
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer discloses (Bayer: FIGS. 4b and 4f) the cushioning element of claim 1, wherein the at least one void comprises a second void in at least one wall of the plurality of interconnected walls (As illustrated in FIG. 4b and 4f of Bayer).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura in view of Bayer discloses (Bayer: FIGS. 4b and 4f) the cushioning element of claim 5, wherein the second void extends vertically from a base of a second wall of the plurality of interconnected walls (As illustrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f of Bayer).
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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 includin: 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).
However, Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one notch is extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls.
Regardless, Bayer teaches (FIGS. 4, particularly FIG. 4b and 4f) a buckling/deformation resistance member wherein at least one notch is extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f).
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].
Regarding claim 16, Kawamura in view of Bayer discloses (Bayer: FIGS. 4b and 4f) the cushioning element of claim 13, wherein the at least one void comprises a second void in at least one wall of the plurality of walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f of Bayer).
Regarding claim 17, Kawamura in view of Bayer discloses (FIGS. 11-14) the cushioning element of claim 16, wherein the second void is formed in a second wall of the plurality of interconnected walls defining each hollow column (As illustrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f of Bayer).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamura in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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 in view of Bayer 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: 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); 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. 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.
However, Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one notch is extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls.
Regardless, Bayer teaches (FIGS. 4, particularly FIG. 4b and 4f) a buckling/deformation resistance member wherein at least one notch is extending vertically from a base of the at least one wall of the plurality of connected walls (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 4b and 4f).
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 Specification and Drawing Objections alongside the 112b and 102 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Specification and Drawing Objections alongside the 112b and 102 Rejections of September 24th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
With regards to applicant’s comments and the interview conducted June 2nd, 2026, the Amendments enterded do overcome the immediate 102 Rejections of record (alongside the Objections and 112b Rejections), However, Bayer appears to clearly provide at least two embodiments with notches originating from the bottom wall and extending upwardly (FIGS. 4b and 4f).
Respectfully, claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 16-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 103 with Kawamura in view of Bayer (and Pearce as a teaching reference on inherent properties of the materials.
However, claims 6 and 18 are objected to as possessing allowable subject matter if rewritten into independent form with any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 18 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 necessitate at a minimum a stiffening feature with a plurality of walls, where at least one void is extending up from a base of the at least one wall while simultaneously necessitating a second void that is vertically extending from the top edge. While Bayer does possess an embodiment with vertically stacked voids (FIGS. 4d), the voids are not extending from the top and bottom edges of the walls. There would be a degree of impermissible hindsight bias necessary to modify Kawamura with Bayer and thereafter modify Bayer further to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights