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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed December 20, 2023 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “seat frame received within the at least one recess” (claims 23, 30 and 32); and the “wiring received within the at least one recess” (claims 24 and 31); must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed August 14, 2026 has been considered.
The information referred to in the IDS filed July 20, 2026 has been considered.
The information referred to in the IDS filed April 27, 2026 has been considered.
The information referred to in the IDS filed December 18, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the second IDS filed December 18, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the third IDS filed December 18, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the fourth IDS filed December 18, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the fifth IDS filed December 18, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed October 3, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed April 26, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed April 19, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed March 21, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed March 20, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed February 22, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the second IDS filed February 22, 2024 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
The information referred to in the IDS filed December 20, 2023 has not been considered. Note as discussed in the Office action of April 28, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23, 24, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Each of claims 23, 30 and 32 recite the limitation the “seat frame received within the at least one recess”, however the disclosure fails to provide adequate description or depiction of where and how the seat frame is presented within the at least one recess. Similarly note the limitation of the “wiring received within the at least one recess” in claims 24 and 31. As such enablement is lacking.
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 22, 29 and 34 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “selected from a group comprising polyolefins, polystyrene-based thermoplastic elastomers, polyester-based thermoplastic elastomers, polyurethane-based thermoplastic elastomers, and polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomers”. This limitation is vague as it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Note the phrase “selected from a group comprising” is open-ended. As such, the claim has been provided in improper Markush format. Similarly note claims 29 and 34.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 26 and 29 be found allowable, claims, 33 and 34, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 20, 21, and 22, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaoka (US20140035191).
Note a product comprising: a body with a nonrectangular cross section (“Y”, as discussed in ¶ 0197) comprising a mesh of strands (see ¶ 0135; filaments) of expanded thermoplastic resin; wherein a density (see ¶ 0191) of the mesh of strands about a perimeter of the nonrectangular cross section is greater than within the perimeter, wherein the perimeter is continuous (see Figs. 13(a)-13(d)) about the nonrectangular cross section, and wherein the perimeter includes at least one recess (formed by the arms of the “Y”) formed therein.
Regarding claim 2, note the density of the mesh of strands about the perimeter of the nonrectangular cross section comprises as a plurality of rows of strands. Note that any two filaments (see ¶ 0135) that are adjacent to one another are representative of a row of strands.
Regarding claim 20, note the at least one recess is physically capable of receiving a plurality of seat components.
Regarding claim 21, note the plurality of seat components comprises at least one of: a seat frame, a wire, and a duct. Note that the plurality of seat components has not been positively claimed, and therefore carry no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 22, note the strands comprise three- dimensional filament loops (see ¶ 0010) extruded from a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group comprising polyolefins, polystyrene-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyester-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyurethane-based thermoplastic elastomers, and polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137).
Claim(s) 25-29, 33 and 34, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaoka (US20140035191).
Note a product comprising: an elongate body with a nonrectangular cross section (“Y”, as discussed in ¶ 0197) comprising a mesh of strands (see ¶ 0135; filaments) of expanded thermoplastic resin, wherein the elongate body defines a perimeter that is continuous (see Figs. 13(a)-13(d)) about the nonrectangular cross section; wherein a density (see ¶ 0191) of the mesh of strands about the perimeter of the elongate body is greater than within the perimeter, and wherein the perimeter includes at least one recess (formed by the arms of the “Y”) formed therein.
Regarding 26, note the density of the mesh of strands about the perimeter of the nonrectangular cross section comprises as a plurality of rows of strands. Note that any two filaments (see ¶ 0135) that are adjacent to one another are representative of a row of strands.
Regarding claim 27, note the at least one recess is physically capable of receiving a plurality of seat components.
Regarding claim 28, note the plurality of seat components comprises at least one of: a seat frame, a wire, and a duct. Note that the plurality of seat components has not been positively claimed, and therefore carry no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 29, note the strands comprise three-dimensional filament loops (see ¶ 0010) extruded from a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group comprising polyolefins, polystyrene-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyester-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyurethane-based thermoplastic elastomers, and polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137).
Regarding claim 33, note the density of the mesh of strands about the perimeter of the nonrectangular cross section comprises as a plurality of rows of strands. Note that any two filaments (see ¶ 0135) that are adjacent to one another are representative of a row of strands.
Regarding claim 34, note the strands comprise three-dimensional filament loops (see ¶ 0010) extruded from a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group comprising polyolefins, polystyrene-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyester-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137), polyurethane-based thermoplastic elastomers, and polyamide-based thermoplastic elastomers (see ¶ 0137).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (US20140035191) in view of Uramichi et al (US20130214583).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of a seat frame.
In the primary reference, note a seat assembly (lines 7-8, ¶ 0258).
The secondary reference conventionally teaches configuring a product as a seat assembly (10) having a body (20) that is sized to provide a cushion pad (60), wherein the seat assembly includes a seat frame (50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by adding a seat frame to the seat assembly of the primary reference. This modification conventionally enhances support of the cushion pad, and as such, necessarily improves user comfort and safety.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s response filed July 24, 2026 has been fully considered. Remaining issues are described above. Arguments with regards to the previously applied prior art are now moot in view of new prior art rejections, as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant is advised that although claims 23, 24, 30, 31 and 32 have not been rejected in view of the prior art, these claims are not considered allowable in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/September 25, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
