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 .
Any References cited but not appearing in any current Form 892 may be found in previous Form 892’s or IDS’s.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered. In the amendment, claims 1-2 and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 8-10 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 11 are currently pending.
The amendment to claims 5 and 6 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to those claims.
The amendment to claim 7 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to that claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at page 2:
A reference does not anticipate unless it discloses each claim element, either
expressly or inherently. Bunker's metal plate is curved, not planar, as required by claim 1.
As evidenced by Cambridge Dictionaries Online at
https://dictionary.cambrige.org/us/dictionary/englistr/planat planar means "having a flat
or level surface that continues in all directions." Bunker explicitly states that its bicycle saddle is "formed or molded in the shape of a compound curve to meet scientific and hygienic conditions and afford a safe and comfortable seat for the rider" (page 2, lines 10-17, emphasis added).
The metal plate 'e' in Bunker must follow this compound curved shape to provide
structural support to the saddle. The specification states: "the tissue of resilient material
constituting the cushion proper is supported on a metal plate e and between the covers
D and D"" (page 2, lines 1-9). The plate provides structural support to maintain the
saddle's three-dimensional compound curve geometry during use. As shown in Bunker's Fig. 5 (reproduced below with added annotations), the saddle has a curved profile with varying heights and contours designed for bicycle riding comfort and safety. The metal plate 'e' necessarily conforms to this curved shape – it cannot be flat/planar while supporting a compound curved saddle structure. If the plate were planar (flat) it could not provide the structural support needed to maintain the saddle’s three-dimensional shape under the dynamic loads of bicycle riding.
Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the metal plate of Bunker is not planar. Examiner agrees that the entire plate e is not planar. However, portions of the metal plate e are planar, such as for example a section seen in Fig. 5 in that a small section of the curve is flat i.e. in the same plane for a least a portion of it. Examiner respectfully submits that though the saddle of Bunker has a curved profile, sections/points of the profile are within a same plane thus the metal plate of Bunker is planar. Applicant argues that planar means having a flat or level surface that continues in all directions. This argument is not persuasive for at least the reason that a planar section of e would be a flat surface continuing in all directions for those sections which are in the same plane. Further, 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., having a flat or level surface that continues in all directions) 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). Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive for at least these reasons.
Applicant argues at page 6:
In contrast, Applicant's invention requires "a first planar surface" because the
base is designed to sit flat on seating surfaces such as chairs, car seats, and
wheelchair seats. The originally filed specification describes the base as "planar" (page
3, last paragraph; FIGS. 2-4 show base 10 as flat) and states it "may be placed on any
suitable surface" (page 3, lines 10-11). A planar base allows the orthopedic cushion to
rest stably on flat or gently contoured seating surfaces. This structural distinction alone distinguishes Claims 1-5 from Bunker. Therefore, claim 1 is novel over Bunker.
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
base is designed to sit flat on seating surfaces such as chairs, car seats, and wheelchair seats) 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). Examiner respectfully submits that though the saddle of Bunker has a curved profile parts of the profile are within a same plane thus the metal plate of Bunker is planar in part. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously cited Sturges (US 4779297) (as evidenced by previously cited Hu [US 2021/0122902] and Hicks [US 484637]) and in the alternative in view of previously cites Sturges (as evidenced by previously cited Hu and Hicks) in view of newly cited Mackenzie (US 2017/0035216).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunker (US 674451).
Regarding claim 1, Bunker discloses an orthopedic cushion (Fig. 1, Fig. 3; page 1, lines 94-104; page 1, lines 15-27; capable of intended use) comprising: a) an inelastic base (e) (metal plate e, page 2, lines 1-9; NOTE: metal is inelastic, annotated Fig. 5 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
having a first planar surface (see top surface of e in annotated Fig. 5; NOTE: points in a small section of the metal plate e are in a same plane and are thus planar) and an upper second surface (annotated Fig. 5; NOTE: it is the top of base e); and b) a resilient pad (A) (page 1, lines 71-82; page 2, lines 1-9; page 2, lines 54-67; page 2, lines 85-96) having a first surface B’ (page 1, lines 89-95; annotated Fig. 5) ergonomically configured to support a user’s anatomy (page 1, lines 40-61; page 1, lines 71-89) during seated use (page 2, lines 10-17; capable of intended use) and a lower second surface (lower surface of tubes; page 1, lines 71-89; annotated Fig. 5) coupled to the upper second surface of the inelastic base (annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Bunker discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Bunker further discloses wherein an elliptical central aperture c’ is formed in the cushion and base (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, page 2, lines 10-17) such that the orthopedic cushion has an elliptical annular shape (NOTE: See the opening in Fig. 3 of the cushion which is an elliptical annular shape).
Regarding claim 3, Bunker discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Bunker further discloses wherein the first surface of the resilient pad has recessed regions (see annotated Fig. 5 below) configured to accommodate the user’s anatomy and/or to relieve pressure on a portion of the user’s anatomy (capable of intended use).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
843
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bunker discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 1.
Bunker further discloses a cover (D, D’) surrounding the cushion and the base (Fig. 2, page 2, lines 1-9; page 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 5, Bunker discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 4.
Bunker further discloses wherein the cover has a double funnel shape (page 2,
lines 1-9; see annotated Fig. 1 below showing a narrowing section of the cover on the top and as the cover covers the top and bottom [there are upper and lower covers] it would have a narrowing section on the bottom just as the top cover thus having a double funnel shape),
PNG
media_image3.png
667
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
having a relatively narrow tubular central portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above showing a relatively narrow tubular central portion), widening to a first end with a circular edge (annotated Fig.1) and a second end with a circular edge (annotated Fig. 1), wherein the first end and the second end have equal diameters (annotated Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sturges (US 4779297) as evidenced by Hu (US 2021/0122902) and as evidenced by Hicks (US 484637) .
Regarding claim 7, Sturges teaches a polymeric base (12) (col. 3, lines 27-37; annotated Fig. 1 below; NOTE: wood is polymeric as evidenced by Hu at [0010]; [0013]; NOTE: as evidenced by Hicks, wood is inelastic, page 1, lines 44-84) operative to support an orthopedic cushion (14) (col. 2, lines 59-63; col. 3, lines 38-43; Fig 1) during seated use (col. 2, lines 11-25; capable of intended use), comprising: a) an inelastic polymeric sheet (16) (col. 2, line 64 to col. 3, line 13; col. 3, lines 27-37; see above description regarding wood being polymeric and inelastic) having an elliptical annular configuration (col. 2, lines 59-63; col. 4, lines 51-62; NOTE: the cushion support article 10 includes the base/cushion support member 12 and the article 10 may be oval which oval shape would have an elliptical annular configuration and thus the base 12 is having an elliptical annular configuration) with a first planar surface (annotated Fig 2 below)
PNG
media_image4.png
383
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
configured to encompass a lower surface area of the orthopedic cushion (annotated Fig. 2 above; col. 3, lines 38-43) and a second planar surface opposite the first planar surface (annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 11, Sturges substantially discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 7.
Sturges further discloses wherein the polymeric base is affixed to the orthopedic cushion (col. 3, lines 51-57).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker (US 674451) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Carrasco (US 2778397).
Regarding claim 6, Bunker discloses the invention as applied to claim 5 above.
Bunker further discloses wherein the cover has mating portions along the substantially circular edges thereof (page 2, lines 18-25).
Bunker does not disclose wherein the cover has mating zipper portions stitched along the circular edges thereof.
Carrasco teaches an analogous cover (11) having analogous edges (11a, 11b) that has mating zipper portions (14a, 14b) stitched along the edges thereof (col. 3, lines 12-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the cover of the orthopedic cushion of Bunker that has mating portions along the circular edges thereof, has mating zipper portions stitched along the circular edges thereof, as taught by Carrasco in order to provide an improved orthopedic cushion that facilitates closing of the cover (Carrasco, col. 1, lines 33-36).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sturges (US 4779297) as evidenced by Hu (US 2021/0122902) and as evidenced by Hicks (US 484637) in view of MacKenzie (US 2017/0035216).
Regarding claim 7, Sturges teaches a polymeric base (12) (col. 3, lines 27-37; annotated Fig. 1 below; NOTE: wood is polymeric as evidenced by Hu at [0010]; [0013]; NOTE: as evidenced by Hicks, wood is inelastic, page 1, lines 44-84) operative to support an orthopedic cushion (14) (col. 2, lines 59-63; col. 3, lines 38-43; Fig 1) during seated use (col. 2, lines 11-25; capable of intended use), comprising: a) an inelastic polymeric sheet (16) (col. 2, line 64 to col. 3, line 13; col. 3, lines 27-37; see above description regarding wood being polymeric and inelastic) having an elliptical annular configuration (col. 2, lines 59-63; col. 4, lines 51-62; NOTE: the cushion support article 10 includes the base/cushion support member 12 and the article 10 may be oval which oval shape would have an elliptical annular configuration and thus the base 12 is having an elliptical annular configuration) with a first planar surface (annotated Fig 2 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
383
757
media_image5.png
Greyscale
configured to encompass a lower surface area of the orthopedic cushion (annotated Fig. 2 above; col. 3, lines 38-43) and a second planar surface opposite the first planar surface (annotated Fig. 2).
Sturges does not explicitly disclose seated use.
MacKenzie teaches an analogous base (18) (Fig. 1) ([0018]) operative to support an analogous orthopedic cushion (12) during seated use ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the polymeric base of Sturges as evidenced by Hicks and Hu is operative to support an orthopedic cushion during seated use, as taught by Mackenzie, in order to provide an improved polymeric base that facilitates supporting a user’s body while supported in differing postures on differing load bearing surfaces including a seating surface or mattresses (Mackenzie, [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Sturges in view of MacKenzie substantially discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 7.
Sturges further discloses wherein the polymeric base is affixed to the orthopedic cushion (col. 3, lines 51-57).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GINA MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (408)918-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:30 PT.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/MICHELLE J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786