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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 15 September 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn as nonelected.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8-10 improperly indicate “original” status in the claims filed 15 September 2025. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn and should be identified as such (See MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121 ( c ). Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 15 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search burden for at least the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement mailed 15 July 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4, 6 & 7 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 80% to 120% relative thickness, and the claim also recites 100% relative thickness which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 60% reduction in thickness, and the claim also recites 70% or 80% thickness reductions which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation a fiber diameter of 0.2 mm to 2 mm exclusive, and the claim also recites a fiber diameter of 0.3 to 1.5 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation of a bulk density of 20 kg/m3 to 70 kg/m3 exclusive and the claim also recites a bulk density between 45 kg/m3 and 65 kg/m3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0145783 to Bhupesh et al. (‘783 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘783 teaches a method for manufacturing a seat padding comprising: providing a padding comprising a 3D entanglement of continuous thermoplastic fibers arranged irregularly forming loops welded together, the padding having a lengthwise direction, a widthwise direction and a thickness direction, as well as a border on the periphery extending along the edges of the padding (Fig 3 item 100, paragraph 0062) hot pressing of the 3D entanglement of fibers, at all or part of the periphery of the padding, so as to produce a densified and stiffened border of the padding, relative to a central zone of the padding of less density and of less rigidity (Fig 3 items 104 and paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 2, ‘783 teaches the method wherein the hot pressing generates a densified and stiffened border which is adjoined by a proximal end to the central zone of the padding, and having a free distal end, and wherein the densified and stiffened border extends along its thickness, over a portion of the thickness of the central zone, lengthwise along the edge of the periphery, and widthwise from its proximal end to its distal end, and wherein the densified and stiffened border forms a shoulder with a free edge of the central zone of the padding (Fig 3 items 104) and wherein the method further provides: folding of the densified and stiffened border against the free edge of the central zone (paragraphs 0136 and 0165).
Regarding claim 3, 783 teaches the method wherein the densified and stiffened border has a first face extending in line with one of the faces of the central portion of the padding (Fig 3 item 104).
Regarding claim 7, ‘783 teaches the method having all or part of the following features - the fibers are hollow fibers and/or solid fibers, with a diameter of between 0.2 mm and 2 mm, preferentially between 0.3 mm and 1.5 mm, - the fibers comprise a thermoplastic polymer (paragraph 0062), the composition of the fibers comprising at least 95% by weight of PET, and wherein the 3D entanglement of the padding has an apparent density of between 20 kg/m3 and 70 kg/m3, in particular between 45 kg/m3 and 65 kg/m3 outside the densified and stiffened zone(s).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘783 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0146287 to Thompson et al. (‘287 hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, ‘783 does not suggest the proportion of densified to un-densified non-woven material. In the same field of endeavor, forming articles from non-woven batts, ‘287 teaches that it is known to shape and size the densified and undensified portions of non-woven batts in order to fit them for purpose or application (paragraph 0075). Since it has been held that finding workable or optimum ranges of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine experimentation, one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to arrive at applicant’s range of proportion for densified and undensified batt for the purpose of fitting a specific application.
Claim(s) claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘783 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,639,543 to Isoda et al (‘543 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘783 does not teach the method of producing the undensified non-woven batt itself. In the related art of forming non-woven batts, ‘543 teaches the method wherein the providing step of providing comprises: extruding a thermoplastic polymer in an extrusion die comprising extrusion nozzles distributed in a lengthwise direction and in a widthwise direction of the extrusion die (C11L44-C11L47), generating a curtain of continuous molten fibers, falling by gravity, receiving the curtain of continuous molten fibers by gravity onto one or more support members with generation of a 3D entanglement of fibers according to an irregular distribution with fusion of loops between the continuous fibers, and/or solidifying the 3D entanglement of fibers by immersion in a cooling liquid (Fig 2. Items 2,7 and 6) for the benefit of producing non-woven batts. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘783 with those of ‘543 for the benefit of forming a cushion of non-woven batt.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘783.
Regarding claim 6, ‘783 discloses that the thickness of the densified portions of the non-woven batt are “substantially reduced” and that such regions are often included to impart strength to the article made (paragraphs 0070 and 0105). Since it has been held that finding workable or optimum values of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art, one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to arrive the range of thickness reduction claimed by applicant for the benefit of imparting the desirable property of toughness or strength to articles made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743