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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I – Species A (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related since the product of Invention II is made by the method of Invention I.
This is not found persuasive because the product of Invention II is not made by the only method of Invention II, as addressed in prior OA (see pages 2-3 of the OA mailed on 10/09/2025). There would be a serious search and examination burden if the restriction was not required between the method and product claims. This stems from the different examination criteria between method and product claims. In this case, product claims differentiate from method claims, since for product claims, it is primarily the claimed structural features that are given patentable weight while other features such as intended use or capability of the apparatus are not given patentable weight. This difference would extend into a search burden since process claims take into account features such as intended use, or operating procedures, which may have different classification classes/subclasses for consideration and different search queries. See MPEP 808.02(C).
Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Thus, the examination on the merits of product claims differs from that of method claims. Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
The Applicant elected Invention I – Species A (claims 1-8) with traverse but did not provide any ground. Invention I - Species A (claims 1-8) and Invention I – Species B (claims 9-15). Both inventions are not capable of use together, mutually exclusive, and not obvious variants as once one way is selected, the other way cannot be performed together. While there may be some overlap in the searches of the inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical and at any point during prosecution, need to diverge from each other, requiring searches in areas which do not overlap.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “an outer peripheral side” in line 3. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “an/the outer peripheral side” (claim 1 lines 6 and 7, respectively), or (2) another new outer peripheral side. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP 2005238675 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a method of producing a molding subsidiary material ([0014-0023]: a reinforcing fabric 14, figs. 1-7), comprising:
a molding step of obtaining a molded material in which an irregular-shaped molded portion is provided on a part of a flat sheet material by molding ([0020]: thermocompression bonded portions 50 can be produced by embossing a nonwoven fabric by passing between heat-pressing rolls; figs. 3-4); and
an overlap-bonding step of overlap-bonding a notched portion provided on an outer peripheral side of the molded material to obtain an overlap-bonded and molded material in which at least a part of the outer peripheral side is curved ([0022-0023]: the reinforcing fabric 14 having notches as shown in fig. 5 is sewn into a bag shape as shown in fig. 6 with stiches 38, 40, 42),
wherein the molding subsidiary material comprises the overlap-bonded and molded material and is integrated with a resin body ([0016]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is sewn into a bag shape as shown in FIG. 6, and is integrated by foam molding of polyurethane foam; figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein at least the outer peripheral side of the molded material is cut into a desired shape before the overlap-bonding step ([0021]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is formed by cutting the nonwoven fabric having the above-described thermocompression bonded portions 50 into the base fabric shape; figs. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according claim 1, wherein the overlap-bonding is performed by sewing, pressure bonding, gluing, or fastening ([0022-0023]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is sewn; figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein the sheet material includes at least a nonwoven fabric ([0017]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is a nonwoven fabric).
Regarding claim 7, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein the molded portion is formed with a through-hole or slit corresponding to an inner cavity provided in the resin body ([0021]: the upper surface fabric portion 24 is provided with a through hole 36 for a headrest at a position corresponding to the through hole 19 (i.e., “an inner cavity” as recited) of the pad body 12; figs. 1, 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2005238675 A) over Abe (JP 2009220445 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that at least an outer peripheral side of the sheet material is cut into a desired shape before the molding step.
Abe teaches a method for manufacturing a seat pad reinforcing cloth for a vehicle set pads made of foamed urethane resin or the like as cushioning material ([0001-0002]). Abe teaches at least an outer peripheral side of the sheet material is cut into a desired shape before a molding step ([0021, 0034]; figs. 1-2, 4-9, 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the reinforcing fabric of Kato to be cut into a desired shape and be further molded to have a shape corresponding to a mold surface as taught by Abe in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming the reinforcing fabric that can be easily fit the shape of the foam mold surface and forming an entire seat pad with a desired rigidity (Abe: derived from [0005-0007, 0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2005238675 A) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2015027739 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kato teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the overlap-bonded and molded material is provided with a magnetic material at least on an outer peripheral side.
Matsumoto teaches a method for manufacturing a cushion pad of a seat for an automobile ([0001]). Matsumoto teaches that the backing material 2 provided with magnetic tape pieces 5 at least on an outer peripheral side is attached and integrated during the foam molding ([0012, 0019], figs. 1-3, 5-10).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing a cushion pad for automobile by integrating a reinforcement structure during foam molding process (Kato: [0001, 0016]; Matsumoto: [0001, 0019]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the subsidiary material of Kato to have a magnetic material at least on an outer peripheral side as taught by Matsumoto in order to obtain known results of a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a foaming body integrated with the reinforcing fabric while the magnetic allows for precise and secure positioning during foam molding, reducing defects such as warping of foam material (Matsumoto: derived from [0009]).
Claims 1-7, alternatively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou (US 20100102599 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2005238675 A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou (US 20100102599 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2005238675 A).
Regarding claim 1, Itou teaches a method of producing a molding subsidiary material ([0017]: a thick non-woven fabric 3 having a shape of flexible sheet which is provided to a back face part 2B of the cushion pad 2 by integral molding; figs. 1-5), comprising:
[a molding step of obtaining a molded material in which an irregular-shaped molded portion is provided on a part of a flat sheet material by molding]; and
[an overlap-bonding step of overlap-bonding a notched portion provided on an outer peripheral side of the molded material to obtain an overlap-bonded and molded material in which at least a part of the outer peripheral side is curved],
wherein the molding subsidiary material [comprises the overlap-bonded and molded material] and is integrated with a resin body ([0023]: when the cushion pad 2 is molded by expansion, the thick non-woven fabric 3 is integrally bonded to the cushion pad 2; figs. 1-5).
Itou does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the molding subsidiary material is molded and overlap-bonded as recited, but Kato teaches the limitation as follows:
Kato teaches a molding subsidiary material ([0014-0023]: a reinforcing fabric 14, figs. 1-7), comprising: a molding step of obtaining a molded material in which an irregular-shaped molded portion is provided on a part of a flat sheet material by molding ([0020]: thermocompression bonded portions 50 can be produced by embossing a nonwoven fabric by passing between heat-pressing rolls; figs. 3-4); and an overlap-bonding step of overlap-bonding a notched portion provided on an outer peripheral side of the molded material to obtain an overlap-bonded and molded material in which at least a part of the outer peripheral side is curved ([0022-0023]: the reinforcing fabric 14 having notches as shown in fig. 5 is sewn into a bag shape as shown in fig. 6 with stiches 38, 40, 42), wherein the molding subsidiary material comprises the overlap-bonded and molded material and is integrated with a resin body ([0016]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is sewn into a bag shape as shown in FIG. 6, and is integrated by foam molding of polyurethane foam; figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the molding subsidiary material of Itou to be molded and overlap-bonded as taught by Kato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming the subsidiary material that can easily fit to foaming mold surface and preventing seeped polyurethane foam material from making abnormal noise when it is in contact with a mounting material while imparting an excellent soft feel thereto (Kato: derived from [0025-0026]).
Regarding 2, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein at least an outer peripheral side of the sheet material is cut into a desired shape before the molding step (Itou: [0017, 0022], fig. 2; Kato: fig. 5).
Regarding 3, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein at least the outer peripheral side of the molded material is cut into a desired shape before the overlap-bonding step (Kato: [0021]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is formed by cutting the nonwoven fabric having the above-described thermocompression bonded portions 50 into the base fabric shape; figs. 5, 6).
Regarding 4, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according claim 1, wherein the overlap-bonding is performed by sewing, pressure bonding, gluing, or fastening (Kato: [0022-0023]: the reinforcing fabric 14 is sewn; figs. 5-6).
Regarding 5, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein the overlap-bonded and molded material is provided with a magnetic material [at least on an outer peripheral side] (Itou: [0027, 0030]: magnets Ba are attached to the vertical face parts 3B, and by attaching these magnets Ba to the upright wall faces Aa of the projected parts 11A, the vertical face parts 3B can be held in a state of abutting the upright wall faces Aa of the projected parts 11A; figs. 2, 5). Here, although modified Itou does not specifically discloses the magnet Ba is provided at least on an outer peripheral side, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnet Ba at least on an outer peripheral side as well as the outer boundary of the molding subsidiary material is formed to cover the upright wall boundary as shown fig. 5.
Regarding 6, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein the sheet material includes at least a nonwoven fabric (Itou: [0017]: non-woven fabric 3).
Regarding 7, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 1, wherein the molded portion is formed with a through-hole or slit corresponding to an inner cavity provided in the resin body (Itou: [0023-0024]: slit 3S according to a shape of the air distributing grooves 2; figs. 1-2).
Regarding 8, modified Itou teaches the method of producing a molding subsidiary material according to claim 7, wherein the inner cavity is a ventilation passage (Itou: [0018-0019, 0023-0024]: air distributing grooves 2C having a dented shape which function as passages for distributing air supplied from back side by an air blower; figs. 1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berta (US 20040084937 A1) teaches a method of making a vehicle seat component (abstract, fig. 8).
Ota (US 20130264742 A1) teaches a method of making a vehicle seat component having an air flow passage (abstract, figs. 1-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744