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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant contends that the Examiner has not shown that there is a serious burden on examination and that the searches for Species I and II would mostly overlap. This is not found persuasive because as shown by references submitted in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/26/24 (at least DE 102005017470 and DE 4130854), providing vertical elastic cylindrical or circular projections are commonly known in the art for use seat cushions, however, elongate tubular elements have a different structure and likely different elastic quality creating a different search scope and concept which does not overlap with that of Species I (including B60N 2/42718 related to residually deforming anti-submarining seat parts) and would not be considered obvious for purposes of restriction. Claims 7-9 and 17 are therefore withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-4, 6, 10, 12, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadiou (US 3679263) in view of Wyman et al. (US 20130326819) (“Wyman”). Cadiou teaches a seat cushion member for relieving local pressure concentrations of an occupant, comprising: a seat suspension (fig. 2: 4); a resilient backing layer (fig. 2: 6) disposed on the seat suspension; a feature layer (fig. 2: 2) disposed on the backing foam layer, wherein the feature layer has multiple features, and wherein at least some of the multiple features undergo a limit point traversal when the seat cushion member is occupied (as shown in fig. 3).
Cadiou does not teach wherein the resilient backing layer is made of foam, a topper foam layer disposed on the feature layer; and a trim layer disposed on the topper foam layer. However, Wyman teaches a cushion having a feature layer with features undergoing a limit point traversal (fig. 3: 304) and a topper foam layer (fig. 3: 302) disposed on the feature layer and a trim layer disposed on the topper foam layer (fig. 3: 308). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a topper foam layer and trim layer in order to provide additional desired comfort to the occupant. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try foam as the resilient backing layer, as is old and well known in the art for cushions (shown by Wyman) in order to provide the desired elasticity to the cushion structure.
As concerns claim 2, Cadiou, as modified, teaches wherein the backing foam layer includes a plurality of dimples (foam cushion elements have a plurality of air pockets/dimples which are commonly created during formation of the foam).
As concerns claims 3 and 13, Cadiou, as modified, does not teach wherein the feature layer includes a first feature layer and a second feature layer. However, Wyman teaches wherein the feature layer has a first feature layer and a second feature layer (figs. 3/5: 514, 516).
As concerns claim 4, Cadiou, as modified, teaches wherein the multiple features return to a nondisplaced configuration when a load is removed from at least a portion of the seat cushion member (the features are elastic).
As concerns claims 6 and 16, Cadiou, as modified, teaches wherein the multiple features include shells with a circular or polygonal base (Cadiou, fig. 1 shows that the base of 2 is a polygon).
As concerns claim 10, Cadiou, as modified, teaches wherein the seat cushion member is disposed in at least one of a seat cushion (Cadiou, as shown in fig. 1), a seat back, a head rest, a calf support, or an arm support.
As concerns claim 12, Cadiou teaches a seat in a vehicle for relieving local pressure concentrations of an occupant, comprising: at least one of a seat cushion or a seat back (fig. 1: shown), the at least one of the seat cushion or the seat back including a seat cushion member disposed within the cushion housing, the seat cushion member including: a seat suspension (fig. 2: 4); a resilient backing layer disposed on the seat suspension (fig. 2: 6); a feature layer (fig. 2: 2) disposed on the backing foam layer, wherein the feature layer has multiple features, and wherein at least some of the multiple features undergo a limit point traversal when the seat cushion member is occupied.
Cadiou does not teach wherein the resilient backing layer is made of foam, a topper foam layer disposed on the feature layer; and a trim/cushion housing layer disposed on the topper foam layer which is sealable and deformable. However, Wyman teaches a cushion having a feature layer with features undergoing a limit point traversal (fig. 3: 304) and a topper foam layer (fig. 3: 302) disposed on the feature layer and a trim layer disposed on the topper foam layer (fig. 3: 308). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a topper foam layer and trim layer in order to provide additional desired comfort to the occupant. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try foam as the resilient backing layer, as is old and well known in the art for cushions (shown by Wyman) in order to provide the desired elasticity to the cushion structure.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadiou (US 3679263) in view of Wyman et al. (US 20130326819) (“Wyman”) and further in view of Dahl et al. (US 10986936) (“Dahl”). As concerns claims 5 and 15, Cadiou, as modified, does not teach wherein the multiple features include a set of first features and a set of second features, wherein the set of first features have a different limit point than the set of second features. However, Dahl teaches a seat cushion having a feature layer (fig. 8) with void cells including a set of first features (fig. 8: top cells 800a) and a set of second features (fig. 8: lower cells 800b), wherein the set of first features have a different limit point than the set of second features (800a and 800b have differently sized/shaped upper and lower tiers 806a, 806b which create different limit points; Col. 7, lines 32-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of Cadiou and Wyman fail to teach wherein the features correspond with the plurality of dimples in the backing layer, and/or wherein nondisplaced features of the feature layer extend into the topper foam layer (claims 11, 14 and 18). Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636