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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-9 have been examined in this application. Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn with respect to the election/restriction requirement. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/03/2025.
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, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being /anticipated by Fuchigami (US4762654A).
Regarding claim 1,
Fuchigami teaches A composite cushion, comprising a first cushion body and a second cushion body, wherein the second cushion body is provided with a wrapping sealing edge (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 6 9-11] boundary B between the foamed layer 20' of the first composition 20 and the foamed layer 21' of the second composition 21), and the wrapping sealing edge is bent in a direction towards a middle to form a wrapping cavity with an opening larger than an inner cavity (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 8 14-16] soft second formed layer 21 surrounded by the hard first foamed layer 20 of the first composition), the first cushion body is located in the wrapping cavity (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 8 14-16] soft second formed layer 21), and the second cushion body is configured to wrap the first cushion body (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 8 14-16] second composition 21 surrounded by hard first formed layer 20); and the first cushion body and the second cushion body are integrally formed in a foaming manner (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 8 4-6] the first composition 20 and the second composition 21 were brought to contact, after which the foaming speed of the first composition 20 further increased but the foaming speed of the second composition 21 gradually lowered), and materials and/or densities of the first cushion body (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 5 54-56] first composition 20 having a higher foaming rate) and the second cushion body are different (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 5 56] second composition 21 low density foam).
Regarding claim 8,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 1, wherein the second cushion body is integrally formed with the wrapping sealing edge by foaming (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 5 50-52] composition 20 is poured into the first block 18 partitioned by the rib 17 and the second composition 21 is poured into the second block 19).
Regarding claim 9,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 8, wherein a folding width of the wrapping sealing edge is uniform (Fuchigami: FIG. 7 [Col. 9 54-56] second composition had uniform thicknesses and that the boundary B).
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) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami (US4762654A) in view of Wilhem (US8990985B1).
Regarding claim 2,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 1.
Fuchigami does not teach wherein the first cushion body is a sponge body.
Wilhem teaches wherein the first cushion body is a sponge body (Wilhem: FIG. 3-5 [Col. 4 3-4] viscoelastic foam insert 6 may be made from a sheet of medium density memory foam) and the second cushion body is a memory form body (Wilhem: FIG. 3-5 [Col. 3 58-67] Molded portion 2 may be made from any type of resilient foam plastic or foam rubber product suitable for use in a seat cushion).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami in view of Wilhem directed to having a foam insert and a foam cushion comprise of variable density foam. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user and create a composite which supports a user’s weight (Wilhem: [Col. 4 13-20]).
Regarding claim 5,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 1.
Fuchigami does not teach wherein the first cushion body is a sponge body.
Wilhem teaches wherein the first cushion body is a sponge body (Wilhem: FIG. 1 [Col. 4 3-4] viscoelastic foam insert 6 may be made from a sheet of medium density memory foam), and the second cushion body is a latex-imitated sponge body (Wilhem: FIG. 1 [Col. 3 60-64] Molded portion 2 may be made from any type of resilient foam plastic or foam rubber product suitable for use in a seat cushion).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami in view of Wilhem directed to having a foam insert and a foam cushion comprise of variable density foam. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user and create a composite which supports a user’s weight (Wilhem: [Col. 4 13-20]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami (US4762654A) in view of Wilhem (US89909585B1) in further view of Lilley (US5855415A).
Regarding claim 3,
Fuchigami as modified teaches The composite cushion according to claim 2.
Fuchigami does not teach wherein a density of the sponge body is 25 to 60 kg/m3 and a density of the memory form body is 30 to 100 kg/m3.
Lilley teaches wherein a density of the sponge body is 25 to 60 kg/m3 and a density of the memory form body is 30 to 100 kg/m3 (Lilley: FIG. 1 [Col. 1 38-39] Resilient foams are used widely for seating applications and range in density from nominally 24 kg/m3 to greater than 112 kg/m).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami in view of Lilley directed to having a foam insert and a foam cushion having distinct variable foam densities. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user by creating a range of standard foam densities for select foams (Lilley: [Col. 1 38-39]).
Regarding claim 4,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 3.
Fuchigami does not teach wherein a thickness of the sponge is one-third to six out of seven of a thickness of the composite cushion.
Wilhem teaches wherein a thickness of the sponge is one-third to six out of seven of a thickness of the composite cushion (Wilhem: FIG. 4 [Col. 4 13-20] thickness of insert 6 is between about 1/3 and 2/3 the total thickness of the seat cushion 1…depth of the cushion including the insert ranges from about 1.5 to 3…molded portion 2 overlying the insert 6 ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami in view of Wilhem directed to having a thickness of a foam insert be between 30% to 86% of the total height. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user and create a composite which supports a user’s weight (Wilhem: [Col. 4 13-20]) Wilhem teaches an insert height of 1/3 of the total depth and a variable insert height of 1.275 inches for a variable total depth 1.5 inches is 85%.
Regarding claim 6,
Fuchigami, as modified, teaches The composite cushion according to claim 5.
wherein a density of the sponge body is 25 to 60 kg/m3 and a density of the latex-imitated sponge body is 30 to 100 kg/m3 (Lilley: FIG. 1 [Col. 1 38-39] Resilient foams are used widely for seating applications and range in density from nominally 24 kg/m3 to greater than 112 kg/m).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami in view of Lilley directed to having a foam insert and a foam cushion having distinct variable foam densities. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user by creating a range of standard foam densities for select foams (Lilley: [Col. 1 38-39]).
Regarding claim 7,
Fuchigami teaches The composite cushion according to claim 6, wherein a thickness of the sponge is one-third to six out of seven of a thickness of the composite cushion (Wilhem: FIG. 4 [Col. 4 13-20] thickness of insert 6 is between about 1/3 and 2/3 the total thickness of the seat cushion 1…depth of the cushion including the insert ranges from about 1.5 to 3…molded portion 2 overlying the insert 6 ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchigami, Wilhem, and Lilley in view of Wilhem directed to having a thickness of a foam insert be between 30% to 86% of the total height. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide stability for a user and create a composite which supports a user’s weight (Wilhem: [Col. 4 13-20]) Wilhem teaches an insert height of 1/3 of the total depth and a variable insert height of 1.275 inches for a variable total depth 1.5 inches is 85%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEANE E. TEJADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/JOSEANE E. TEJADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
11/15/2025