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 of Group I, claims 1 – 10 and 20 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11 – 19 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Term Definition
The term “FDY” is interpreted as fully drawn yarn as set forth in the disclosure (paragraph 74).
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are 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.
The phrase “has a rhombic pattern” in claim 4 is indefinite. Applicant is describing a warp-knit fabric with a 3-layer structure has a rhombic pattern. It is unclear if the fabric as a whole is formed into a rhombic pattern including all three layers or if the rhombic pattern is only on one surface, both surfaces, or in the cross-section.
The phrase “has a hexagonal pattern” in claim 8 is indefinite. Applicant is describing a 3D warp-knit fabric with a hexagonal pattern. It is unclear if the fabric as a whole is formed into a rhombic pattern across the entire thickness of the knit structure or if the rhombic pattern is only on one surface, both surfaces, or in the cross-section.
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) 1 – 8, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (7,191,480) in view of Zoni, III et al. (2020/0360210), Neely et al. (5,454,142), and Shirasaki et al. (US 2002/0104335).
Romano et al. is drawn to a cushion structure that includes a base portion and a three-dimensional engineered material joined together to support a body (abstract). Romano et al. discloses that the invention relates to cushion structures designed to improve pressure distribution while reducing thickness by adding a resilient three-dimensional layer over a foam base (column 1, lines 20 – 35). Examples of three-dimensional engineered fabrics are described as being materials such as those taught by US 5,731,062 or US 5,454,142, Neely et al. Neely et al. is incorporated by reference (column 1, lines 40 – 60). Neely discloses a needled nonwoven structure with compressibility and resilience comprising foam like properties (Abstract). Romano et al. discloses that two to four layers of three-dimensional materials which have resilience are added on top of the foam base (column 4, lines 5 – 13). Further, Romano discloses that different combinations of materials can be used in the to provide desired support to the final product (column 3 and 5).
While Romano et al. discloses using engineered three-dimensional layers on foam layers, Romano et al. fails to teach using a warp knit three-dimensional layer. Zoni, III et al. is drawn to a cushion providing support to a human body comprising a composite with a foam layer and other #D spacer layers (abstract). Zoni, III et al. teaches that the composite can have multiple 3D spacer layers with different properties (paragraph 10 – 11). The use of a combination of different layers with different properties helps to distribute pressure evenly and provides improvements (paragraph 18). Various commercially known 3D fabrics can be used by Zoni, III et al. (paragraphs 22 – 26). One example of a 3D spacer taught by Zoni et al. can include polyester warp-knit layers as taught by US 2002/0104335 to Shirasaki et al, which is incorporated by reference (paragraphs 22 – 23). Shirasaki et al. includes a structure with a top layer, bottom layer, and middle yarns connecting the layer together (Figures 1A and 1B). Further, the top surface can be knitted to create different patterns on the top or bottom surfaces (Figures 5A and 7A). Further, Zoni, II Iet al. teaches that the 3D fabric can be chosen to have different levels of firmness or compression properties (paragraphs 27 – 29). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the top layer of the at least two three-dimensional engineered material with a 3D warp-knit spacer since Zoni, III et al. discloses that the warp-knit 3D fabrics can be modified to having desired firmness properties and can be used in combination with other resilient and foam layers to help produce cushions that distribute pressure evenly within the cushion structure and Romano et al. desires at least two or more three-dimensional engineered materials on top of the base foam layer.
While Romano et al. discloses that foam layers can be used in the cushion structure, Romano et al. fails to teach using EVA foam materials. Kim is drawn to a foam cushion. Kim teaches that foam materials including polyurethan foams, EVA foams, and polyolefin foams have customarily been used in paddings, pads, and protective gear and equipment for their protective and shock absorbing characteristics (paragraph 2). The foam materials may be formulated or fabricated so as to have different densities, hardness, stretch, or tear resistance characteristics (paragraph 3). And foam layers can be combined with different materials with different properties (paragraph 4). Further, Kim teaches that the resilient foam layer can be perforated to enhance the flexibility, permeability, or breathability of the entire assembly (paragraph 129). Thus, it would have been obvious to use perforated EVA foam as the supportive foam of Romano et al., since these materials are known to be used in cushions and can be formulated to have desired properties including perforating the foam to make the structure more breathable as taught by Kim.
Additionally, Romano et al. discloses that the layers can be joined together by stitching, welding or gluing (column 4, lines 35 – 40).
Further, Romano et al. discloses that the bottom surface can include a bottom cover layer such as a nonskid open woven fabric (column 5, lines 1 – 5). The term “open weave” is considered to be equivalent to a mesh structure. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that other open fabric structures such as a mesh knit could be used instead of an open weave woven fabric. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute similar materials such as open mesh knit fabrics for open weave fabrics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Thus, claims 1 – 4, 10, and 20 are rejected.
Further, as set forth above, the prior art teaches that the properties of the layers relating the cushioning (Romano et al., Column 5 and Zoni, III et al., paragraphs 28 – 30) or properties and thickness of the 3D layers (Zoni, III et al., paragraphs 10 – 11) can be modified or customized depending on the support desired in the final products. Further, Zoni, III et al., teaches various types of 3D knit fabrics can be used in the cushion composite. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the thickness properties, cushioning properties, and knit structures, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. Thus, claims 5 – 8 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the cushioning layers comprising a first warp-knit sandwich fabric, adjacent a 3D nonwoven fabric, adjacent a perforated EVA foam layer, adjacent a warp-knit mesh fabric wherein the layers include specific properties as recited in claim 9. While, modifying properties of individual layers would be within the modifications disclosed in the prior art, as set forth above, it is obvious over the prior art to choose a cushion composite with the specific combination wherein the top surface layer and the bottom surface layer of the warp-knitted sandwich fabric comprise 100% PET multifilament yarn of a linear mass density of about 30D, the middle connecting layer of the of the warp-knitted sandwich fabric comprises 100% PET multifilament yarn of a linear mass density of about 150D, the warp-knitted sandwich fabric has a thickness of about 1.5 mm, and the warp-knitted sandwich fabric has a rhombic pattern; the 3D nonwoven material comprises 100% PET fiber, has a thickness of about 20 mm, and has a density of about 20 kg/m3; the perforated EVA foam has a hardness of about 45HC, has a thickness of about 13 mm, has a density before perforation of about 50 kg/m3, and has holes of a diameter of about 6±0.6mm and a pitch of about 11±1.5mm; and the warp-knitted mesh fabric comprises 100% PET multifilament yarn comprising a 300D FDY multifilament yarn and a 75D/72F multifilament yarn, has a thickness of about 0.5 mm, and has a hexagonal pattern. Thus, claim 9 is allowed.
Further, it is noted that the method claims would be considered for rejoinder if claims included all the allowable features of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
September 13, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights