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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second part" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-10 and 12-14 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 1 and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US Patent Number 11485260) in view of Sakai (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0379789).
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 molded or formed into the module support as an integral component of the housing (both 130 and 140 are at least “formed 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), wherein a second part of the at least two parts of the housing is attachable to the first part (140 is attachable in this manner). Cho may not clearly disclose the housing closing as claimed. Sakai discloses a related device including a housing comprising at least two parts (at least 51 and 52), wherein a first part of the housing has a first receiving space formed therein for receiving a pump, wherein a second part of the housing is attachable to the first part of the housing to close the housing around the pump to define the first receiving space (this is the general arrangement with members 51 and 52 mating and defining a pump receiving space). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a housing closing as taught by Sakai in Cho’s device because this could provide a stable and secure mounting to improve user safety and comfort.
Regarding claim 3, Cho, modified as described, further discloses the at least two parts are connected to one another (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claims 4 and 5 Cho, modified as described, 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 6, Cho, modified as described, 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, modified as described, 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 (this would be the general arrangement of the combination).
Regarding claim 8, Cho, modified as described, 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 9, Cho, modified as described, 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, modified as described, 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.
Regarding claim 12, Cho, modified as described, 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 (the combination would at least provide an elastic connection).
Regarding claim 13, Cho, modified as described, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Cho’s housing is not molded or formed into the module support, and that various 35 USC 103 rejections lack proper motivation.
Regarding the housing, it is initially noted that the relevant language would appear to be a product-by-process limitation in which patentability rests on the product itself. Nevertheless, Cho is viewed as providing a first part of a housing at least formed into the module support as explained above (i.e. they are connected to form an integral unit).
Regarding the motivation of the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is maintained that a proper prima facie case was made. That is, improvement of comfort and performance for users is well understood by those in the art to be a desirable goal. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be more than capable of understanding that vibration-damping and electrical-connecting components can be readily installed in various locations to effect such comfort and performance benefits.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights