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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. In response, applicant amended claims 1-2 and 4-5 then canceled claim 3.
The 112 rejections are withdrawn based on the submitted claim amendments.
The rejections based on Locke are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejections based on Elliot, applicant primarily argues that the product by process limitations introduced into the amended claim are not taught or suggested by the combination of references. However, for purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Thus, the prior art is not required to teach the process steps only the resultant structure of a reticulated PU foam layer with uniformly dispersed through holes and a composite glue layer, which they do as set forth below. In order to distinguish the product claim from the prior art, it is advised to claim the resultant structure or physical properties that result from the process that differ from a foam in which the holes are directly cut and are supported by the Instant Specification.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 20200214479 A1) in view of Tursi et al. (US 20140201925A1), herein Tursi, and Jansen et al. (US 20200000241 A1), herein Jansen and in view of Vallejos et al. (Metal-free organocatalysts for high hydrolytic stability single component polyurethane adhesives and their application in decorative insulation facades manufacturing), herein Vallejos.
In regards to claims 1, 4-6 and 10, Elliot teaches a support cushion comprising a reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer [Abstract, 0034, 0038]. Elliot further teaches the foam layer may be a plurality of layers and the layers are secured together by adhesive bonding wherein the adhesive extends the entire surface of the layer [0034, 0039]. Elliot further teaches the layer has apertures that extend through the foam layer, and which would have connecting foam between the holes [0040].
Elliot does not expressly teach that the foam layer is a polyurethane reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer.
Tursi teaches a body support cushion comprising layers of foam [Abstract, 0003].
The top sheet of the comprises a reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam [0012-0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam of Tursi as the reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer of Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, as reticulated polyurethane visco-elastic foam is taught as a conventionally known material is cushioning applications one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Elliot does not expressly teach that the through holes in the foam layer are uniformly distributed.
However, as the intended application is a cushion it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the pressure and air flow are evenly distributed through the foam layer and thus make the holes evenly distributed across the layer. Further, an even distribution of holes ensures an ease of assembly in a final product.
Elliot does not expressly teach that the adhesive is a composite glue layer that permeates into the foam holes.
Jansen teaches a body support cushion is provided with layered foam [Abstract, claim 1]. Jansen further teaches that the layers are joined together by a composite glue layer comprising a polyurethane system [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used composite adhesive of Jansen as the adhesive of Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known adhesive for foams for another to obtain predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to ensure that the adhesive partially permeates the foam layer in order to improve the adhesive bond between the layers by anchoring the adhesive in the foam as opposed to just at the surface of the foam.
Modified Elliot does not teach wherein the composite liquid glue comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight: 20-70 parts of a liquid glue, 0.1-0.3 parts of a catalyst, and 1-5 parts of a foaming agent.
Vallejos teaches polyurethane (PU) adhesives [Abstract]. Vallejos teaches the adhesives are used to bond foams [Fig. 4]. The catalyst typically is an amine or tin [Pg. 3, col 1]. The catalyst is present at 0.1-0.3 wt% of the liquid glue formulation [Table 1-2]. Dicholormethane (DCM) is present generally at 5 wt% [Table 2, Pg. 6]. The adhesive is cured [Pgs. 2-4]. Vallejos does not expressly teach the wt% of the PU polymer present in the glue for optimal application. It would have been obvious to adjust the viscosity of glue by adding a diluent to the PU polymer so that the glue is spreadable based on the application process chosen to apply it to the foam but not too spreadable as the adhesion strength is related to the polymer is present in the glue to adhere the layers together.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parts of the liquid glue present for the intended application, 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 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a PU based adhesive with the general formulation set forth by Vallejos, with a tin or amine catalyst, DCM and an adjusted viscosity with a diluted PU polymer as the PU adhesive of modified Elliot. One would have been motivated to do so as Vallejos teaches this is a conventionally known PU adhesive composition and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having uniformly distributed holes in a reticulated PU foam and a cured composite glue layer. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 2, Elliot teaches a support cushion comprising a reticulated visco-elastic flexible foam layer [Abstract, 0034, 0038]. Elliot does not expressly teach the shape of the apertures/holes in the foam layers.
However, changes in shape have been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have changed apertures of modified Elliot to a hole shape that is one of diamond, rectangle, circle, oval, or triangle because a change in shape has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Elliot discloses the claimed invention except for the hole shape is one of diamond, rectangle, circle, oval, or triangle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to made the hole shape a circle or oval, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Tobia et al. (US 20140338131 A1) and Swartzburg (US 7334280 B1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights