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
Claim 2, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 13, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 (species 1-B, 2-C, 3-B, and 4-A) in the reply filed on January 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 are examined.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “air permeability control surface portion” in claim 1 is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0021] as “a surface portion for controlling the air permeability between the inside of the foam body 2 and the outside of the foam body 2”.
The limitation “air permeability control surface portion” in claim 1 is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0022] as “a surface portion that cannot control air permeability, or a surface portion the air permeability of which is not controlled”.
The limitation “covering material” in claim 1 is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0027] as “examples of the covering material 3 include, for example, a sheet member such as masking tape, and a sol material such as rubber (e.g., latex rubber) and resin (especially, non-air permeably non-foam polyurethane resin)”.
The limitation “defective portion” in claim 3 is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0030] as “recesses and scars”.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 9, line 3 – “high density polyethylene” should read “high-density polyethylene” for grammar
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "as the molding die a molding die" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as “wherein the method uses a molding die where an inner surface of the molding die is covered with high-density polyethylene”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Shinohara (JP 2009125217 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shinohara in view of Sakai (JP H06182067 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shinohara discloses a cushion material manufacturing method for obtaining a cushion material (¶ [0015-0016] – vehicle seat pad 1), wherein the cushion material comprising:
a foam body (¶ [0016] – pad body 2) having a surface portion (exterior of 2) formed of an air permeability control surface portion (¶ [0018-0019] – 2 constructed from a low-density material; made of polyurethane foam) and an air permeability uncontrol surface portion (¶ [0016] – insert 3 fitted into recess 2a of 2) and
a covering material (¶ [0023] – low-air-permeability layer 4) configured to cover the air permeability uncontrol surface portion (¶ [0023] – low-air-permeability layer 4 provided to surround 3);
wherein the cushion material manufacturing method comprising covering the air permeability uncontrol surface portion of the foam body with the covering material (¶ [0023] – low-air-permeability layer 4 provided to surround 3).
Shinohara discloses air passing through the top, bottom and side surfaces of 3, and air passing between 2 and 3 (¶ [0024]).
In arguendo, Shinohara does not disclose a foam body having a surface portion formed of an air permeability control surface portion and an air permeability uncontrol surface portion, then Sakai is applied.
Analogous art Sakai discloses a method of manufacturing a cushioning material (¶ [0001]).
Sakai discloses a foam body (¶ [0008] – “soft polyurethane foam sheet layer”) having a surface portion formed of an air permeability control surface portion (¶ [0008] – constituting skin or skin layer) and an air permeability uncontrol surface portion (¶ [0008] – exposed recesses). The recesses have open cells, and there is an open cell ratio (ratio of open cells to total number of open and closed cells) (¶ [0008]). The higher the open cell ratio, the more flexible the adhesive is, and the more effective it is at introducing hot air into the adhesive, resulting in more efficient curing of the reactive hot melt adhesive (¶ [0008]). The “opening ratio of the thermoplastic resin film layer” is preferably 20 to 90% for sufficient wrinkle prevention effect and stretchability and sufficient slip properties of the back surface for workability when sewing the surface material (¶ [0009]).
Shinohara and Sakai disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to forming seat cushions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the polyurethane foam sheet layer comprising a skin and exposed recesses with the ratio range above in Sakai to the pad body with recesses in Shinohara for sufficient wrinkle prevention effect and stretchability and sufficient slip properties of the back surface for workability when sewing the surface material (¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Shinohara discloses the cushion material manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the air permeability uncontrol surface portion includes a defective portion of the foam body (¶ [0016] – recess 2a of 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Shinohara discloses the cushion material manufacturing method according to claim 1.
As recited in the instant specification in ¶ [0011], “the inflow speed of air flowing into the inside of the foam body during vibration may be slower than the outflow speed of air discharged from the inside of the foam body to the outside of the foam body during the vibration, which in this case, the cushion material can absorb the vibration with significantly changing the dynamic stiffness of the foam body”. Therefore, the inflow and outflow speed of air flowing in and out affects the vibration absorption and dynamic stiffness.
Shinohara discloses the insert and low-air permeability layer provides, so that when sitting on the vehicle seat pad, the air permeability from the pad body to the insert decreases, and the rigidity of the vehicle seat pad increases, and makes it possible to improve vibration absorption and adjust vibration characteristics (¶ [0003]). The low-breathability layer is provided, which reduces the amount of air entering and leaving the insert when vibration is applied to it (¶ [0012]). The synthetic resin film may be provided with small holes to adjust the breathability/permeability, thereby adjusting the vibration characteristics (¶ [0031]). Reducing the breathability increases the rigidity (¶ [0033]). By adjusting the breathability of 4 made of nonwoven fabric or the like, it is possible to adjust the vibration characteristics of the vehicle seat pad (¶ [0034]).
Shinohara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein an inflow speed of air flowing into inside of the foam body during vibration is slower than an outflow speed of air discharged from the inside of the foam body to outside of the foam body during the vibration. As the air permeability of the low-air permeability layer and rigidity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the holes or fabric in the low-air permeability layer, with said rigidity increases as the air permeability is decreased (¶ [0033]), the inflow and outflow speed of air flowing in and out of the foam body would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed inflow and outflow speed of air flowing in and out of the foam body cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the air permeability of the low-air permeability layer through holes and fabric in the method of Shinohara or modified Shinohara to obtain the desired rigidity and vibration characteristics where an inflow speed of air flowing into inside of the foam body during vibration is slower than an outflow speed of air discharged from the inside of the foam body to outside of the foam body during the vibration (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shinohara discloses the cushion material manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the covering material includes a sol substance (¶ [0026] – 4 is made of synthetic resin film).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shinohara (JP 2009125217 A) in view of Sakai (JP H06182067 A) and Liyanage (US 2014/0120337 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Shinohara discloses the cushion material manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Shinohara discloses the surface material having an outer layer of a thermoplastic resin film (for example, polyethylene) (¶ [0015]). Sakai discloses a thermoplastic resin film layer is a synthetic resin can be polyethylene (¶ [0009]).
Modified Shinohara does not disclose wherein the method uses, as the molding die a molding die the inner surface of which is covered with high density polyethylene.
Analogous art Liyanage discloses a method for the manufacture of a fabric laminated foam article (¶ [0051]).
Liyanage further discloses wherein the method uses, as the molding die a molding die the inner surface of which is covered with high density polyethylene (¶ [0174] – moulds made of high density polyethylene).
Shinohara and Liyanage disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to forming seat cushions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the mould made of high density polyethylene in Sakai to formation of the cushion in modified Shinohara as it is a suitable material and advantages to avoid penetration and maintaining adhesive property of the foam to the fabric at its maximum (¶ [0051], [0174-0175]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754