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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 February 2026 has been entered.
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “wherein a first part of the at least two parts of the housing is integrated into the module support[,] as an integral component of the housing.” It is unclear how “an integral component of the housing” is intended to modify this language. That is, it would seem that “a first part of the… housing” would inherently be a “component of the housing,” and it is not clear how this relates to the “first part... [being] integrated into the module support.”
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on indefinite 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) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US Patent Number 11485260).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cho discloses a vehicle seat comprising a seat frame structure (while not shown, the device is described as installed in a seat, which would inherently include at least some frame structure) and a module support arrangement (100), the module support arrangement being suspended from the vehicle seat frame structure via a suspension (extending wires, springs) for attachment to the seat frame structure of the motor vehicle seat and for fixing pneumatic components or non-pneumatic components (at least 132 for instance), the module support arrangement having a module support (including 110) with a front side and a rear side opposite the front side, wherein the module support arrangement comprises a housing (130, 140) for receiving a pneumatic pump (132), the housing comprising at least two parts (at least 130 and 140) wherein a first part of the at least two parts of the housing is integrated into the module support as an integral component of the housing (both 130 and 140 are “integrated into the module support” at least in that they are connected to form an integral unit, while they are similarly both “integral component[s]” of the housing), wherein the first part of the housing integrated into the module support has a first receiving space formed therein for receiving the pneumatic pump (at least portion 130 has such a receiving space).
Regarding claim 2, Cho further discloses the first part that is integrated into the module support is molded into the module support or formed into the module support (it would be viewed at least as formed into the support via 140 for instance).
Regarding claim 3, Cho further discloses the at least two parts are connected to one another (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Cho further discloses at least one of the pneumatic components is fixed to the module support arrangement, and the pneumatic components are selected from the group consisting of a pump, a valve block, a fluid actuator, and fluid ducts (132 is a pump fixed to the module support arrangement).
Regarding claim 7, Cho further discloses the first part of the at least two parts that is integrated into the module support is molded or formed into the module support (it would be viewed at least as formed into the support via 140 for instance) and a second part of the at least two parts of the housing is a part which is separate from the module support and which is attached to the first part that is integrated into the module support (e.g. 140 is attached in this manner).
Regarding claim 8, Cho further discloses at least one part of an air routing duct is integrated into at least one of the at least two parts (the upper portion forms such a duct; see figures).
Regarding claim 12, Cho further discloses the two parts are connected to one another via a connection means selected from the group consisting of a hinge, an elastic connection or a living hinge (based on the synthetic resin construction of 140, it is viewed at least as an elastic connection).
Regarding claim 13, Cho further discloses the second part of the housing that is a part which is separate from the module support is attached to the first part by an attachment means selected from the group consisting of laser welding, high-frequency welding, vibration welding, gluing, or clipping (they are at least viewed as clipped).
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) 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claims 4 and 5 Cho discloses an arrangement as explained above including at least plastic and felt material, and molding in general, but may not disclose the materials or molding specifics in relation the parts as claimed. However, changes in material and the claimed molding operations are well-known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the materials and molding as claimed based on normal variation to improve manufacture and performance for various users.
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses an arrangement as explained above including at least one compensator region (at 180) is formed at the module support and the first part of the housing or in the first part, which compensator region is designed to reduce the transmission of vibrations generated by a pump received in the housing (this is the general arrangement), but may not disclose the particular arrangement as claimed. Rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art however, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and performance for various users.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Cho discloses an arrangement as explained above including electrical components but does not disclose it specifically in relation to the pump. Such arrangements and components are well-known and as duplication and rearrangement requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and performance for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 have been considered and the prior 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment introduced new 35 USC 112 issues as noted above.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments filed 1 February 2026 and entered with the RCE filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Cho does not disclose every element of the invention as currently claimed. While it is appreciated that the invention may differ somewhat from the cited art, it is maintained that Cho discloses an arrangement as currently claimed as explained above. Applicant has not specifically pointed out what claimed element is lacking in Cho or how Cho specifically fails to meet the claimed limitations. The rejections have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636