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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the reply received 04/28/2026 for application No. 18/657,196 filed on 05/07/2024.
The reply cancelled claims 10-20 and added claims 21-29.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the amendment to claim 1 are noted.
Newly submitted claims 24-26 and 29 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims do not find support in the election reply filed on 12/15/2025 (the reply elected Group I, Species V (fig. 12), Sub-species A (fig. 14) and elected claims 1-4, 6-9 and 21).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 24-26 and 29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 21-23 and 27-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 and 5/13/2026 are acknowledged. The 02/19/2026 IDS is/are not in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98 and MPEP 609. Specifically, 37 C.F.R. §1.98 (a)(3)(i) which states the following: (a)(3)(i) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from applicant’s specification or incorporated therein. See MPEP 609.04.A.III.
While it is not appropriate to attempt to set forth procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of disclosure, MPEP § 2004 states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents (i.e. including voluminous publications) if it can be avoided. MPEP § 2004 also provides “Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list or voluminous publication(s) is/are submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to the Applicant’s attention and are known to be of most significance.” Care should be taken to see that prior art or other information cited in a specification or in an information disclosure statement is properly described and that the information is not incorrectly or incompletely characterized.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that the 12/15/2025 reply elected without traverse Species V (fig. 12) and sub-species A (fig. 13)
The subject matter of claims: 1, 23-29.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 23 and 28 are each considered a product by process claim which fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 22 and claim 27, respectively, because the product by process fails to impart any further structural or functional distinctions and fails to limit the product in any way. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
1090
1325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 21-23 and 27-28, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0174725 A1, hereinafter D1.
As to claim 1.
Claim 1 is considered a product by process claim. D1 discloses each and every structural element of the burner panel set forth in claim 1. D1 discloses a cushion (cushion 1 in e.g. fig. 1), comprising:
a filament mesh structure (e.g. one of 45 or 43, each are composed of filaments, i.e. a first and second set of filaments) comprising a first set of filaments ([0080] A core material for cushion 1 according to a first embodiment is comprised of a three-dimensional net-like structure 41 in a plate-like form that is made of or mainly made of a thermoplastic resin as a raw material and is formed by spirally tangling a plurality of filaments at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A), wherein each member of the first set of filaments is bonded to at least one other member of the first set of filaments ([0080] tangling a plurality of filaments at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat), the filament mesh structure defining a first side (structure 41 has six sides); and
a layer (the other of 45 or 43 in fig. 1) that is disposed on the first side of the filament mesh structure (45 and 43 are disposed on respective sides) bonded to at least some members of the first set of filaments ([0083] A three-dimensional net-like structure used for respective layers (first layer and second layer) is formed by tangling a plurality of filaments at random in loops and thermally welding the tangles).
D1 is silent as to after the filament mesh structure has been cooled, wherein the filament mesh structure is heated before the layer is deposited on the first side of the filament mesh structure such that the layer is bonded. Thus, even though D1 is silent as to the process used to dispose the layer on the filament mesh structure, it appears that the cushion in D1 would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a filament mesh with a layer applied. However, the claimed phrase “after the filament mesh structure has been cooled, wherein the filament mesh structure is heated before the layer is deposited on the first side of the filament mesh structure such that the layer is bonded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the layer (the other of 45 or 43 in fig. 1) comprises at least one of a second set of filaments (the other of 45 or 43 is composed of filaments) and a film (in fig. 3A, 3B a sheet 9A is disposed on each of 45 and 43).
As to claim 3.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 2, and further discloses wherein a gap is provided between adjacent members of the second set of filaments ([0080] the cushion is formed of a net-like structure = gaps between filaments as in the figures).
As to claim 4.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the second set of filaments is contiguous ([0080] formed by spirally tangling a plurality of filaments at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A; the bonding = “contiguous”).
As to claim 6.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the film is one of air impermeable ([0126] lack of pores in sheet 9A = impermeable to provide sound attenuation) or air permeable (an embodiment not elected).
As to claim 7.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the layer (the other of 45 or 43 in fig. 1) is disposed on at least a portion of the first side (as in fig. 1).
As to claim 8.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the layer extends from an edge of the first side (fig. 1 and 2A).
As to claim 9.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the filament mesh structure comprises a set of sides (in fig. 1 we see a structure 1 which is comprised of a 45 and a 43, each having 6 sides, wherein the first side is a member of the set of sides and the layer is provided on at least one member of the set of sides in addition to the first side (the layer is provided on opposing faces of 45 and 43).
As to claim 21.
D1 discloses the cushion of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the second set of filaments (the other of 45 or 43 is composed of filaments) comprises at least one of a linear configuration and a non-linear configuration ([0034] In view of the above problems, the invention provides a core material for cushion, comprising a three-dimensional net-like structure that is formed by spirally tangling filam ents, … at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat).
As to claim 22.
D1 discloses wherein the layer is a film (in fig. 3A, 3B a sheet 9A is disposed on each of 45 and 43).
As to claim 23.
Claim 23 is considered a product by process claim. As to claim 23, D1 discloses wherein the film is a pre-manufactured film of flexible material unrolled onto the filament mesh structure (see explanation for claim 22). See MPEP 2113.
As to claim 27.
Claim 27 is considered a product by process claim. D1 discloses a cushion (cushion 1 in e.g. fig. 1), comprising:
a filament mesh structure (netlike structure 41, fig. 1) comprising a first set of filaments (e.g. one of 45 or 43, each are composed of filaments, i.e. a first and second set of filaments; [0080] A core material for cushion 1 according to a first embodiment is comprised of a three-dimensional net-like structure 41 in a plate-like form that is made of or mainly made of a thermoplastic resin as a raw material and is formed by spirally tangling a plurality of filaments at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A),
wherein each member of the first set of filaments is bonded to at least one other member of the first set of filaments ([0080] A core material for cushion 1 according to a first embodiment is comprised of a three-dimensional net-like structure 41 in a plate-like form that is made of or mainly made of a thermoplastic resin as a raw material and is formed by spirally tangling a plurality of filaments at random and partially bonding the tangles by heat as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2A), the filament mesh structure defining a first side (side of 45 facing 43); and
a film layer (in fig. 3A, 3B a sheet 9A) applied to the filament mesh structure (in fig. 3A, 3B a sheet 9A is disposed on each of 45 and 43) through application of heat to the filament mesh structure to facilitate bonding of the first set of filaments to the film layer.
D1 is silent as to through application of heat to the filament mesh structure to facilitate bonding of the first set of filaments to the film layer. Thus, even though D1 is silent as to the process used to dispose the film layer on the filament mesh structure, it appears that the cushion in D1 would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a filament mesh with a film layer applied. However, the claimed phrase “through application of heat to the filament mesh structure to facilitate bonding of the first set of filaments to the film layer” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
1263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 28.
Claim 28 is considered a product by process claim. As to claim 28, D1 discloses wherein the film is a pre-manufactured film of flexible material unrolled onto the filament mesh structure (see explanation for claim 22). See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 20 July 2026
Prosecution Insights