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 .
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, 6-9,15-17 and 19-20 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (2005/0052068). Smith et al. shows the use of a seating system with an independent suspension system comprising: a base (Fig. 2) having an outer side wall (32,34,36,38) defining an outer side perimeter of the seating system and an upper opening; a suspension system (40) positioned within the perimeter of the outer side wall, the suspension system having a support structure (42) and a resilient compressible element (46,48) connected to the support structure, the resilient compressible element having an upper support surface wherein the support structure spaces the resilient compressible element from a first portion of the outer side wall (Fig. 2); a cushion layer (24) supported on the upper support surface of the resilient compressible element; and, an outer layer of material covering the cushion layer (Fig. 1) and spanning the opening defined by the outer side wall. The outer side wall includes a first side wall portion (32), a second side wall portion (34) opposing and spaced from the first side wall portion, a third side wall portion (36) and a fourth side wall portion (38) opposing and spaced from the third side wall portion, whereby the support structure spaces the resilient compressible element from the first, second, third and fourth side wall portions (Fig. 2) and (partially) below a top of the outer side wall (Fig. 4) at a lower end thereof. Regarding claim 7, the support structure comprises a first beam (42) extending from the third side wall portion to the fourth side wall portion (Fig. 4) and a second beam extending from the third side wall portion and to the fourth side wall portion and spaced therefrom (as shown in Fig. 7). Regarding claims 8 and 16-17, Smith et al. shows the use of a cross-beam (42’) extending from the first to the second beam and the resilient compressible element comprises a plurality of springs (46) and a compressible portion (48) extending between the first and second beams. Regarding claims 15 and 20, the base can be part of an ottoman (see para[0029]).
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) 10-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al in view of Lucas (4,886,250). Smith et al. shows the use of material (48) above the plurality of spring elements. Smith et al shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the use of a resilient compressible element comprising an elastic straps extending between the first and second beams. Lucas teaches the use of resilient compressible element comprising an elastic straps or bands (26) extending between first and second beams (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seating system of Smith et al. with the elastic straps, as taught by Lucas in order to provide additional comfort, resilience and firmness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Smith doesn’t show “a support structure that spaces the spring elements and flexible bands from all of the side wall portions”, applicant is directed to the above rejection whereby Smith teaches a support structure (42) that spaces the resilient compressible element above a bottom of the base support (Fig. 4) and extending between the first and second beams and first and second crossbeams (Figs. 3 and 7). The resilient compressible elements are above the ground and a bottom of the base support while being inward of the side wall portions respectively. The resilient compressible are shown (partially) extending between the first and second beams and first and second crossbeams.
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., spring elements and flexible bands which extend across the beams and cross-beams) 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). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Smith and Lucas, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lucas teaches the use of elastic straps or bands as a resilient compressible member.
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 ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
January 26, 2025