DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 06/08/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are allowable over the cited references. For example, the cited references do not disclose "populating the two-dimensional surface with a plurality of points, at least in part by determining a number of the plurality of points based on a predetermined value of one or more of a compressibility, durability, or weight of the foam material," and that “Attar does not disclose that "a number of the plurality of [offset] points" (i.e., in Attar the decision to use three points) is "based on a predetermined value of one or more of a compressibility, durability, or weight of the foam material”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Attar at para [0022] clearly provide for a comfort analysis in which sections that may be included as foam attributes 222, seat designs may vary with different “comfort” parameters of a seat at different seat positions, such as plushness, firmness, or other characteristics that define a “feel” of the seat, and force (e.g., force normal or perpendicular to a seat surface point). The FEA may specify more support (e.g., an increased force value or weight) at different seat positions/points or less support (e.g., a decreased force value or weight) at the seat positions and is then compressed within the seat surface during manufacturing (thus producing increased force applied by the foam pressing outwards at the foam overbuild sections; see further para [0035]). As per applicant’s assertions that: “In addition, Claim 1 requires "generating, for each of the one or more surface boundaries, a boundary wall having a particular boundary-wall thickness, wherein each of the generated cell regions is enclosed by the one or more boundary walls.", the examiner respectfully notes that Chen et al., used as a secondary reference in the rejection, provides for analyzing the effects of boundary conditions in the finite element model (see page 2250-2251) in which at page 2256, open-cell and closed-cell boundary conditions were analyzed to produce analytical solutions; fig.1, 6, page 2249, further states that to create a 2D Voronoi diagram, randomly generated nucleation points are placed in a 2-dimensional domain according to an assumed distribution function. The area surrounding each generation point enclosed by the normal constitutes the Voronoi cell. With the assumption that all cell walls have the same thickness, t, and the summation is carried over the total number of cell walls within the unit cell. The relative density of the model foam is changed by altering the cell wall thickness. 2271, We contemplate a model foam of volume V made of random struts in 2D space.); and that the combination of the cited references clearly render obvious the limitations contrary to applicant’s assertions. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “at least the claim features of "applying the two-dimensional surface to a foam material" and "creating, in the foam material, cells in accordance with the cell regions within the two-dimensional surface" are not mental processes. The human mind cannot create cells in a foam material, as the human mind cannot modify a foam material (or any other physical material) at all. Nor can the human mind apply a surface to a foam material, as the human mind cannot apply anything to a physical material. As a result, the claims here recite features that are not directed to any abstract idea, and therefore the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter”, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims, as currently amended, are clearly directed to an abstract idea (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept) and the claims clearly do not recited any additional elements that are to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, but mere instructions/elements to implement the idea on a computer, or by recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry (see MPEP 2106.05); and that the claims clearly do not include any practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5.1 Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of manufacturing a foam material comprising: The step of: “generating a two-dimensional surface enclosed by one or more boundaries”; “populating the two-dimensional surface with a plurality of points, at least in part by determining a number of the plurality of points based on a predetermined value of one or more of a compressibility, durability, or weight of the foam material”; “generating, for each of the plurality of points, a corresponding cell region on the two-dimensional surface, wherein each cell region comprises a cell surface area bounded by a cell wall, and wherein each cell wall has the same thickness”; “generating, for each of the one or more surface boundaries, a boundary wall having a particular boundary-wall thickness, wherein each of the generated cell regions is enclosed by the one or more boundary walls”; “applying the two-dimensional surface to a foam material”; and “creating, in the foam material, cells in accordance with the cell regions within the two-dimensional surface”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 30-36, and fig.6) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 30-36, and fig.6) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-9 merely include limitations pertaining to: (claim 2), “wherein populating the two-dimensional surface with the plurality of points comprises distributing the points according to a point density map based on a target compressibility for the foam material” (mental process). (claim 3); “wherein a metric describing a variation in the cell surface area among cell regions in the surface is less than a threshold tolerance” (mental process); (claim 4); “wherein the cell-wall thickness and the boundary-wall thickness are the same thickness” (mental process); (claim 5); “wherein each cell region comprises one or more of a polygonal shape or a curved planar shape” (mental process); (claim 6); “wherein creating cells in the foam material comprises removing material from the foam” (mental process); (claim 7) “wherein removing material from the foam comprises one or more of: (1) die cutting the foam material; (2) laser cutting the foam material; (3) CNC routing the foam material; or (4) water jet cutting the foam material” (mental process); (claim 8) “wherein the foam material comprises a plurality of foam materials” (mental process); (claim 9) “enclosing the foam material between (1) a mounting surface adjacent to a first surface of the foam material and (2) a contact surface adjacent to a second surface of the foam material opposite the first surface” (mental process); all of which further amount to further mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
6.0 Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0349232), in view of Chen et al. (Effect of imperfections on the yielding of two-dimensional foams, 38 page (1999)).
6.1 In considering claim 1, Attar teaches a method of manufacturing a foam material (see title, abstract, CAD-based foam part generation) comprising:
generating a surface enclosed by one or more boundaries (see para [0029] One such example is shown in FIG. 3, which depicts a cross-section of a seat design that includes a styled seat surface 311 (with an inner surface boundary 312) as well as a seat frame boundary 313. In FIG. 3, the foam part generation engine 110 identifies the inner surface boundary 312 of the styled seat surface 311 as a foam boundary for an initial geometry of a CAD foam part as a CAD foam part may be designed to directly abut (at least at parts) against the inner surface boundary 312 of the styled seat surface 311.); populating the surface with a plurality of points (see para [0035] In FIG. 4, example underbuild offsets are illustrated points on the seat surface 411. fig.5-6); applying the surface to a foam material (see [0044] The foam part generation engine 110 may generate the overbuild curve 524 between the tangent point from which the extended tangent line 522 is projected and the point at which the extended underbuild curve 523 intersects the seat surface 411 (or any other points on the seat surface 411 determined by the foam part generation engine 110). [0049] FIG. 6 shows an example of a foam boundary that the foam part generation engine 110 may compute for a seat design. In FIG. 6, the cross section 610 is illustrated that includes the seat surface 411 (as consistently described in connection with FIGS. 4 and 5) with underbuild offsets at points. Cross section 620 shown in FIG. 6 illustrates a foam curve 621 the foam part generation engine 110 may determine by performing any combination of the foam part generation features described for FIGS. 3, 4, and 5 or otherwise herein.), at least in part by determining a number of the plurality of points based on a predetermined value of one or more of a compressibility, durability, or weight of the foam material (see para [0022] sections that may be included as foam attributes 222, seat designs may vary with different “comfort” parameters of a seat at different seat positions, such as plushness, firmness, or other characteristics that define a “feel” of the seat. and specify particular support levels as measured via force (e.g., force normal or perpendicular to a seat surface point). the FEA may specify more support (e.g., an increased force value or weight) at different seat positions whereas luxury seat designs may specify less support (e.g., a decreased force value) at the seat positions. Increased force values may be accomplished via foam overbuilds, in which the geometry of a constructed foam part extends past a seat surface, and is then compressed within the seat surface during manufacturing (thus producing increased force applied by the foam pressing outwards at the foam overbuild sections). Decreased force values may be accomplished via foam underbuilds. [0035], The seat surface 411 may, for example, represent an exterior surface of a seat design or an interior surface of seat surface material (e.g., the inner surface boundary 312 of a styled seat surface 311). Offset values at points X, Y, and Z of the seat surface 411 may be determined via comfort analysis and accessed from product simulation or FEA systems, and in FIG. 4, each of offsets for X, Y, and Z specify a respective (and different) foam offset value for a foam part of the seat design. ); however, he does not specifically show generating, for each of the plurality of points, a corresponding cell region on the two-dimensional surface, wherein each cell region comprises a cell surface area bounded by a cell wall, and wherein each cell wall has the same thickness; and creating, in the foam material, cells in accordance with the cell regions within the two-dimensional surface.
Chen et al. teaches generating, for each of the plurality of points, a corresponding cell region on the two-dimensional surface, wherein each cell region comprises a cell surface area bounded by a cell wall, and wherein each cell wall has the same thickness; generating, for each of the one or more surface boundaries, a boundary wall having a particular boundary-wall thickness, wherein each of the generated cell regions is enclosed by the one or more boundary walls (see fig.1, 6, page 2249, To create a 2D Voronoi diagram, randomly generated nucleation points are placed in a 2-dimensional domain according to an assumed distribution function. The domain is then divided into Voronoi polygons by drawing lines from each point to the nearest neighboring points, with normal drawn to bisect these lines. The area surrounding each generation point enclosed by the normal constitutes the Voronoi cell. With the assumption that all cell walls have the same thickness, t, and the summation is carried over the total number of cell walls within the unit cell. The relative density of the model foam is changed by altering the cell wall thickness. 2271, We contemplate a model foam of volume V made of random struts in 2D space.); and creating, in the foam material, cells in accordance with the cell regions within the two-dimensional surface (see section 3.1. Voronoi cell models; abstract, A simple elliptical yield function with two adjustable material parameters successfully fits the numerically predicted yield surfaces for the imperfect 2D foams, fig.1, 6, page 2249, The area surrounding each generation point enclosed by the normal constitutes the Voronoi cell. It is assumed that the Voronoi diagram used in the present finite element model is the `unit' cell of an infinite periodic cellular material with random microstructures, see Fig. 6(a).).
Attar and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Chen et al. is similar to that the Attar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.2 Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein populating the two-dimensional surface with the plurality of points comprises distributing the points according to a point density map based on a target compressibility for the foam material (see Chen et al. page 2257, Table 1 compares the Young's modulus, bulk modulus, and uniaxial and hydrostatic compression yield strengths of G-Voronoi structures having an identical relative density, r 0:15, but a different total number of cells, N = 400, 800 and 1200.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.3 As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein a metric describing a variation in the cell surface area among cell regions in the surface is less than a threshold tolerance (see Chen et al. page 2249-250, when the number fraction of short cell walls with respect to the total number of cell walls is less than 5% (which is satisfied in all the cases studied here), the error incurred by modelling all cell walls in a random microstructure with beam elements is expected to be small. This is to be expected, as fractured cell walls have a much stronger knock-down effect than variations in cell size on the yield strength of 2D foams. Thus, when cell size variations co-exist with fractured cell walls in a 2D foam, pg.2262). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.4 With regards to claim 4, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein the cell-wall thickness and the boundary-wall thickness are the same thickness (see Chen et al. page. 2249, The resulting Voronoi diagram is then a globally periodical structure having a unit cell of size L L. With the assumption that all cell walls have the same thickness). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.5 Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein each cell region comprises one or more of a polygonal shape or a curved planar shape (see Chen et al. page 2249-2250, The domain is then divided into Voronoi polygons by drawing lines from each point to the nearest neighboring points, 3.1.1. Cell size distributions A typical periodic unit cell ABCDA of size L x L arbitrary units and consisting of about 400 Voronoi polygons is shown in Fig. 6(a).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.6 As per claim 6, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein generating cells in the foam material comprises removing material from the foam (see Chen et al. page 2261, Fig. 12(b) displays the finite element mesh of a perfect honeycomb with 1% of its cell edges removed including any material thereof randomly; the fractured cell edges are marked by small arrows on the mesh.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.7 As per claim 8, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches that wherein the foam material comprises a plurality of foam materials (see Chen et al. page 2250, Unless otherwise stated, J2-¯ow theory is employed and the cell wall material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic with a Young's modulus of E =68 GPa, a Poisson's ratio of n=0.3, and a yield stress of sy=130 MPa, which are representative of aluminum alloys. Pg. 2270, We contemplate a model foam of volume V made of random struts in 2D space. It is assumed that the material is rigid, ideally plastic and that the deformation of each strut is dominated by stretching with negligible bending effects.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
6.8 Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches the step of enclosing the foam material between a mounting surface adjacent to a first surface of the foam material and a contact surface adjacent to a second surface of the foam material opposite the first surface (see Chen et al. page 2249, To create a 2D Voronoi diagram, randomly generated nucleation points are placed in a 2-dimensional domain according to an assumed distribution function. The domain is then divided into Voronoi polygons by drawing lines from each point to the nearest neighboring points, with normal drawn to bisect these lines. The area surrounding each generation point enclosed by the normal constitutes the Voronoi cell. It is assumed that the Voronoi diagram used in the present finite element model is the `unit' cell of an infinite periodic cellular material with random microstructures, see Fig. 6(a) and also pg. 2257, the cell sizes of a random Voronoi honeycomb created without constraining the minimum distance separating two adjacent generation points follows the G-distribution law). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Chen et al. with that of Attar because Chen et al. teaches the improvement of manufacturing processes (see page 2241).
7. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0349232), in view of Chen et al. (Effect of imperfections on the yielding of two-dimensional foams, 38 page (1999), further in view of Fakhouri et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2019/0366666).
7.1 With regards to claim 7, the combined teachings of Attar and Chen et al. teaches most of the instant invention; however, he does not expressly show that wherein removing material from the foam comprises one or more of: (1) die cutting the foam material; (2) laser cutting the foam material; (3) CNC routing the foam material; or (4) water jet cutting the foam material. Fakhouri et al. teaches that wherein removing material from the foam comprises one or more of: (1) die cutting the foam material; (2) laser cutting the foam material; (3) CNC routing the foam material; or (4) water jet cutting the foam material (see para [0077] With continued reference to FIG. 2, once the molding process 240 is completed, the molded cushioning members 300 proceed to a shaping step 250 and are removed from the precursor blank 306. In some examples, the cushioning members 300 may be die cut. However, other methods of cutting, such as CNC cutting devices (e.g., cutters, lasers, waterjets, etc.) may be utilized. The cushioning members 300 are then processed through an edge buffing step 260 to remove imperfections from an outer periphery of the cushioning member 300. Finally, the cushioning members 300 are printed and packed at step 270 of the method 200.). Attar, Chen et al., and Fakhouri et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Fakhouri et al. is similar to that of Attar and Chen et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Fakhouri et al. with that of Attar and Chen et al. because Fakhouri et al. teaches the improvement of comfort and durability (see para 78-79).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
8.1 Woolbright et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2017/0138013) teaches a method and system for retainer slopes.
8.2 Fernandez-Ramirez et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2026/0079474) teaches a method (200) for process automation of a production process referring to an extruded foaming thermoplastic polyurethane process for producing a polyurethane foam.
9. Claims 1-9 are rejected and 10-20 are directed to non-elected invention. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights