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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 06/22/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
The Section 102 and 103 rejections have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
New Section 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been implemented in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20,
There appears to be no support for the phrase requiring the outer skin layer and the padding to be “formed exclusively of TPU materials” in light of claim 3. Claim 3 requires the outer skin to further comprise polyester fibers, which is not a TPU material. Thus, it is unclear how the outer skin can be formed exclusively from TPU but also include polyester fiber. It is unclear if the phrase “formed exclusively of TPU materials”, which is not explained or described in the specification, includes materials other than strictly TPU. For examination purposes, the phrase “exclusively formed from TPU materials” will be interpreted in light of claim 3 to include materials that are capable of being recycled with TPU. Applicant’s specification does not appear to have support for any “TPU material” that is capable of being recycled or mixed with the TPU outer skin and padding components.
Regarding claims 2-10,
Claims 2-10 are rejected under Section 112(a) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Further regarding claim 20,
There appears to be no support for the phrase requiring the stitching and the at least one tie-down clip are each “formed exclusively of TPU materials”. The phrase is unclear (see the Section 112(b) below) and is interpreted to include materials that are capable of being recycled with TPU (which includes TPU itself). The specification does not give support for materials other than TPU. There is no recitation in the specification for the stitching and tie clips to be exclusively formed from “TPU compatible materials”.
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 1-10 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 20,
Claim 1, from which claim 3 ultimately depends, and claim 20 requires the outer skin and the padding to be formed exclusively from TPU materials. Claims 3 and 20 requires the outer skin to further comprise polyester fibers, which is not TPU. It is unclear how the outer skin can be formed exclusively from TPU but also include polyester fiber. It is unclear if the phrase “formed exclusively of TPU materials”, which is not explained or described in the specification, includes materials other than strictly TPU. For examination purposes, the phrase “formed exclusively of TPU materials” will be interpreted in light of claim 3 to include materials that are capable of being recycled with TPU.
Regarding claims 2-10,
Claims 2-10 are rejected under Section 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Further regarding claim 20,
The phrase requiring the stitching and the at least one tie-down clip are each “formed exclusively of TPU materials”. The phrase is unclear (see the Section 112(b) below) and is interpreted to include materials that are capable of being recycled with TPU (which includes TPU itself). The specification does not give support for materials other than TPU. There is no recitation in the specification for the stitching and tie clips to be exclusively formed from “TPU compatible materials”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Galbreath et al. (US 2009/0085384 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Galbreath teaches a vehicle seat comprising a seat cushion (a seat cushion for a vehicle seat), comprising: a trim material (22, an outer skin or film) that is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU, which is a thermoplastic elastomer film); and a foam layer (32, a padding) that is formed of a foam material such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Galbreath: abstract; par. 0041-0043). The outer skin and padding may be considered to each be formed of “exclusively TPU materials” as they may be formed of only TPU materials as interpreted in the Section 112(b) rejection above.
Galbreath is silent towards the outer skin and the padding are adapted for unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content by enabling recycling of the seat cushion in a single TPU material stream without requiring separation of incompatible materials. Applicant’s specification does not provide an explicit definition for “unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content by enabling recycling of the seat cushion in a single TPU material stream without requiring separation of incompatible materials”; however, the specification details the above feature as wherein all features of the composite component are made from TPU (Applicant’s specification: par. 0003-0004 and 0044). Thus, the stated phrase will be interpreted in light of the specification as being met when the outer skin layer and the padding being made of TPU. As Galbreath teaches the outer skin layer and the padding may be composed of TPU, they are fully capable of being recycled in the claimed manner as the outer skin layer and the padding may be made exclusively from TPU.
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) 2-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbreath in view of Yin et al. (US 2022/0145496 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Galbreath teaches the seat cushion required by claim 1. Galbreath further teaches the outer skin includes a mesh reinforcement layer formed from fibers (Galbreath: par. 0043).
Galbreath does not explicitly teach wherein the fibers are TPU fibers.
Yin teaches the utilizing thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) fibers in chair mesh (Yin: abstract; par. 0015 and 0087). The TPU fibers provide low shrinkage with high productivity to produce fabrics that could be well controlled during production (Yin: par. 0088). TPU fibers possess similar rigidity to that of polyamide and polyester fibers, together with high tenacity, high modulus and low elongation which makes TPU applicable in similar fields, such as utilized in chair reinforcement mesh components and fabrics (Yin: par. 0002, 0015, and 0087).
Galbreath and Yin are in the corresponding field of reinforcement mesh layers composed of fibers for use in chairs. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the TPU fibers of Yin in the reinforcement mesh layer of Galbreath to provide improved shrinkage properties and controllable fabric properties during production.
Regarding claim 3,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 2. Yin further teaches the fibers may be polyester-based TPU with polyester based crosslinkers, thus the mesh reinforcement layer may be considered to comprise a blend of TPU fibers and polyester fibers as the fibers may comprise TPU and polyester-based fibers (Yin: par. 0060). Additionally, Galbreath teaches the use of polyester fibers (Galbreath: par. 0043) and Yin teaches TPU fibers possess similar rigidity to that of polyamide and polyester fibers, together with high tenacity, high modulus and low elongation which makes TPU applicable in similar fields, such as utilized in chair reinforcement mesh components and fabrics (Yin: par. 0002, 0015, and 0087). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a blend of polyester and TPU fibers in the reinforcement mesh of Galbreath as combining two known fiber types with similar properties in similar fields to arrive at a reinforcement mesh with the desired production and physical properties.
Regarding claim 4,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 2. Galbreath further teaches a clip can be used to secure the outer skin (22) to a frame (14) (Galbreath: par. 0043-0045).
Galbreath is silent towards the outer skin and the padding is adapted for unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content. Applicant’s specification does not provide an explicit definition for “unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content”; however, the specification details the above feature as wherein all features of the composite component are made from TPU (Applicant’s specification: par. 0003-0004 and 0044). Thus, the stated phrase will be interpreted in light of the specification as being met when the outer skin layer and the padding being made of TPU and the clips may be made of TPU (Galbreath: par. 0049). As Galbreath teaches the outer skin layer, the padding, and the clips may be composed of TPU, they are fully capable of being recycled in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 5,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 2. Galbreath further teaches clips (52, tie-down clips), made from TPU, that may be sewn to the outer skin to secure said outer skin to the padding (Galbreath: par. 0043-0045 and 0049).
Regarding claim 6,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 2. The limitation requiring the outer skin to be formed with “thermoforming mold” into a desired shape is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the outer skin disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed outer skin.
It is noted that any shape may be considered a “desired” shape and as the outer skin of the prior art is desired for its intended purposes and is thus considered a desired shape. The padding is applied to an inner surface of the outer skin (Galbreath: Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 6. The limitation requiring the padding to be formed from “liquid TPU foam that is poured within the desired shape of the outer skin, wherein the liquid TPU foam expands within the desired shape and cures to a solid foam structure” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU foam padding disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed final structure of the padding.
Regarding claim 8,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 6. The limitation requiring the padding to be formed from “a plurality of gas-filled TPU beads that are melted to one another at points of contact of outer surfaces of adjacent beads, wherein the desired shape of the outer skin is filled with gas-filled TPU beads and steam is applied to the gas-filled TPU beads, melting the outer surfaces of the gas-filled TPU beads and melting adjacent beads to one another, forming a solid foam structure when cooled” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU foam padding disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed final structure of the padding.
Regarding claim 9,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 6. Galbreath further teaches the TPU foam is molded to a desired shape and is placed to a corresponding desired shape of the outer skin (Galbreath: par. 0034 and 0054). It is further noted that the limitations requiring molding or cutting of the foam padding or the outer skin are product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU foam padding disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed final structure of the padding.
Regarding claim 20,
Galbreath teaches a composite component comprising: a trim material (22, an outer skin) that is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU, which is a thermoplastic elastomer) and thus may be considered a TPU elastomer film; and a foam layer (32, a padding) that is formed of a foam material such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and may be molded into a desired shape and placed into a corresponding desired shape of the outer skin (Galbreath: abstract; par. 0034, 0041-0043, and 0054). The foam may be considered a solid foam structure as it is detailed as a cushion structural layer. The outer skin includes a mesh reinforcement layer formed from fibers (Galbreath: par. 0043). Attachment clips (52, tie-down clips), made from TPU, may be sewn to the outer skin to secure said outer skin to the padding and/or to a support frame (14), and thus may be considered to be configured to secure the outer skin to the padding (Galbreath: par. 0043-0045 and 0049). The limitations requiring the outer skin to be thermoformed within a thermoforming mold are product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU foam padding disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed final structure of the padding.
Galbreath does not explicitly teach wherein the fibers are TPU fibers.
Yin teaches the utilizing thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) fibers in chair mesh (Yin: abstract; par. 0015 and 0087). The TPU fibers provide low shrinkage with high productivity to produce fabrics that could be well controlled during production (Yin: par. 0088). TPU fibers possess similar rigidity to that of polyamide and polyester fibers, together with high tenacity, high modulus and low elongation which makes TPU applicable in similar fields, such as utilized in chair reinforcement mesh components and fabrics (Yin: par. 0002, 0015, and 0087).
Galbreath and Yin are in the corresponding field of reinforcement mesh layers composed of fibers for use in chairs. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the TPU fibers of Yin in the reinforcement mesh layer of Galbreath to provide improved shrinkage properties and controllable fabric properties during production. The resulting product in which the stitching and the attachment clip are made of TPU may be considered to be formed exclusively of TPU compatible materials in view of the interpretation of these limitations taken in the Section 112(b) rejection above.
Yin further teaches the fibers may be polyester-based TPU with polyester based crosslinkers, thus the mesh reinforcement layer may be considered to comprise a blend of TPU fibers and polyester fibers as the fibers may comprise TPU and polyester-based fibers (Yin: par. 0060). Additionally, Galbreath teaches the use of polyester fibers (Galbreath: par. 0043) and Yin teaches TPU fibers possess similar rigidity to that of polyamide and polyester fibers, together with high tenacity, high modulus and low elongation which makes TPU applicable in similar fields, such as utilized in chair reinforcement mesh components and fabrics (Yin: par. 0002, 0015, and 0087). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a blend of polyester and TPU fibers in the reinforcement mesh of Galbreath as combining two known fiber types with similar properties in similar fields to arrive at a reinforcement mesh with the desired production and physical properties.
The limitation requiring the padding to be formed from “a plurality of gas-filled TPU beads that are melted to one another at points of contact of outer surfaces of adjacent beads, wherein the desired shape of the outer skin is filled with gas-filled TPU beads and steam is applied to the gas-filled TPU beads, melting the outer surfaces of the gas-filled TPU beads and melting adjacent beads to one another, forming a solid foam structure when cooled”; the limitation requiring the padding to be formed from “liquid TPU foam that is poured within the desired shape of the outer skin, wherein the liquid TPU foam expands within the desired shape and cures to a solid foam structure”; the limitation requiring the outer skin to be formed from “thermoformed within a thermoform molding”; the limitations requiring molding or cutting the foam or the outer skin are all product by process limitation. It is further noted that the limitations requiring molding or cutting of the foam padding or the outer skin are product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU foam padding disclosed by Galbreath and Yin and the claimed final structure of the padding.
Galbreath and Yin are silent towards the outer skin, the padding, the mesh reinforcement layer, and the clips are adapted for or configured for unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content. Applicant’s specification does not provide an explicit definition for “unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content by enabling recycling of the composite component in a single TPU material stream without requiring separation of incompatible materials”; however, the specification details the above feature as wherein all features of the composite component are made from TPU (Applicant’s specification: par. 0003-0004 and 0044). Thus, the stated phrase will be interpreted in light of the specification as being met when the outer skin layer, the padding, and the clips are made of TPU. As Galbreath and Yin teach the outer skin layer, the clips, the reinforcement mesh, and the padding may be composed of TPU, they are fully capable of being recycled in the claimed manner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbreath in view of Yin and in further view of Soliven et al. (WO 2023/154834 A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Galbreath and Yin teach the seat cushion required by claim 6. Applicant’s specification has no special or specific definition for what constitutes a “bladder”. Therefore, the phrase will be interpreted in light of the specification which is a space in which the foam resides inside and encapsulated by the outer skin. Galbreath teaches the TPU outer skin layer (22) encapsulates the foam layer (32) (Galbreath: Figs. 2-5). The outer skin would thus form a bladder as there is an empty area for which the foam layer resides.
Galbreath does not explicitly teach heat welding a second skin formed form a TPU elastomer onto an inner surface of the outer skin. However, Galbreath does teach TPU is a desired material for trim/skin layers and it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize TPU for any additional skin layers to achieve the desired material properties for the intended use as a seat cushion for a vehicle.
Soliven teaches a seat cushion for a vehicle which comprises a trim layer and a foam layer (Soliven: abstract; pg. 4, lin. 15-23 – pg. 5, lin. 1-11). The trim layer may be composed of multiple pieces (a first and second layer) which may be heat welded together in which the bottom piece of the overlap would be considered a second layer heat welded onto the inner surface of an outer skin, in which welding allows for a versatile method of joining materials and provide the desired shape, size, or texture that that simplifies joining components (Soliven: pg. 5, lin. 7-23 – pg. 6, lin. 1-4; pg. 8, lin. 3-13; pg. 10, lin. 13-20).
Galbreath and Soliven are in the corresponding field of seat cushion composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to construct the TPU outer skin layer of Galbreath to have a first and second TPU outer skin layer in which an overlapping portion is heat welded to provide the desired shape, size, texture when joining two pieces when forming a seat cover that encapsulates the foam layer as taught by Soliven.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues Galbreath can’t be used as a 102 rejection because Galbreath recites a list of several materials for the outer skin layer and the padding and thus does not have sufficient specificity, even though TPU is listed as options for both the outer skin layer and the padding.
The argument is not found persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would see the limited and specific list of materials for both the outer skin layer and the padding and choose from the list. Each option in the list is a single embodiment taught by Galbreath’s specification, which includes the combination of TPU for both layers. Thus, sufficient specificity is provided.
Applicant argues that Galbreath has a preferred embodiment that teaches expanded polypropylene as a structural layer and other material combinations.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no requirement that nonpreferred embodiments cannot be utilized in a Section 102 or 103 rejection. “Nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Applicant continues to argue that Galbreath contemplates separating the layers for recycling, not recycling them unitarily in a single stream. Applicant argues that additional language has been amended to further specify how the recycling occurs to differentiate from Galbreath.
The argument is not found persuasive as the amended claims are still functional in nature. Thus, Galbreath satisfies the functional limitations if it is fully capable of being recycled in the claimed manner. Applicant’s specification does not provide an explicit definition for “unitary closed-loop recyclability with completely recoverable content by enabling recycling of the seat cushion in a single TPU material stream without requiring separation of incompatible materials”; however, the specification details the above feature as wherein all features of the composite component are made from TPU (Applicant’s specification: par. 0003-0004 and 0044). Thus, the stated phrase will be interpreted in light of the specification as being met when the outer skin layer and the padding are made of TPU. As Galbreath teaches the outer skin layer and the padding may be composed of TPU, they are fully capable of being a recycled in the claimed manner as the outer skin layer and the padding may be made exclusively from TPU. Galbreath does not explicitly teach away from recycling in another manner and Applicant has not persuasively argued or provided evidence that Galbreath has a structural difference from the claimed final product (which is a composite material prior to recycling) and that disclosed by Galbreath. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2145 II.
Applicant argues the outer skin of Galbreath cannot be considered a film structurally as a film is defined as a thin continuous sheet of TPU.
The argument is not found persuasive even using Applicant’s provided definition. Thin is a subjective term and Figures 2A and 2B of Galbreath, which states the outer skin layer can be formed of TPU, is clearly the thinnest layer compared to the padding layers and is continuously wrapped across said padding layer.
Applicant argues that the motivation to use Yin is not the same purpose as Applicant, that is for recycling purposes and thus cannot be utilized in a Section 103 rejection with Galbreath.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no requirement for the prior art to have the same motivation as Applicant’s specification. Galbreath and Yin were shown to be in a corresponding field with an advantage or motivation to do the proposed combination being provided. Thus, the standard to combine into a proper Section 103 rejection has been met.
Applicant argues that Yin does not cure the deficiency of Galbreath’s recyclability system and thus does not teach all the limitations of claim 20.
The argument is not found persuasive as Yin was not utilized to teach the recyclability aspect of the claims. How that limitation was met is explained above in a previous argument directed at Galbreath.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 8, that the foam is formed from gas-filled TPU beads that are melted to one another at points of contact of outer surfaces of adjacent beads… forming a solid foam structure when cooled implies structure not met by the prior art as Galbreath teaches chemical blowing a liquid precursor that is a continuous polymeric matrix with dispersed gas cells rather than discrete pre-formed beads fused together at points. Thus, Applicant argues that the structure claimed is different form Galbreath.
The argument is not found persuasive as the structure implied by Applicant does not appear any different from a continuous matrix foam with a given porosity with gas filled pores as melting the contacts points from beads would also result in a continuous matrix structure with a given density. Applicant has not persuasively explained or provided evidence of what the actual structural difference is but stated the structure would be different due to different mechanisms. It is further noted that the limitations requiring molding or cutting of the foam padding or the outer skin are product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2145 I.
Applicant repeats the argument with a thermoforming process limitation regarding the outer skin layer TPU film.
The argument is also not persuasive as there appears to be no structural difference from the TPU film of Galbreath and the TPU film required by the claim. It is further noted that the limitations requiring molding or cutting of the foam padding or the outer skin are product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2145 I.
Applicant argues that Soliven does not teach a sealed “bladder” from TPU to contain a TPU foam padding and does not correspond to the claimed structure as it is not specifically a sealed enclosure formed by heat welding a second TPU skin.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no requirement in the claims for the skin to “seal” as argued by Applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145 VI.
Additionally, Soliven teaches a seat cushion for a vehicle which comprises a trim layer and a foam layer (Soliven: abstract; pg. 4, lin. 15-23 – pg. 5, lin. 1-11). The trim layer may be composed of multiple pieces (a first and second layer) which may be heat welded together in which the bottom piece of the overlap would be considered a second layer heat welded onto the inner surface of an outer skin, in which welding allows for a versatile method of joining materials and provide the desired shape, size, or texture that that simplifies joining components (Soliven: pg. 5, lin. 7-23 – pg. 6, lin. 1-4; pg. 8, lin. 3-13; pg. 10, lin. 13-20).
Galbreath and Soliven are in the corresponding field of seat cushion composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to construct the TPU outer skin layer of Galbreath to have a first and second TPU outer skin layer in which an overlapping portion is heat welded to provide the desired shape, size, texture when joining two pieces when forming a seat cover that encapsulates the foam layer as taught by Soliven. Galbreath additionally teaches a space between the encapsulating skin layer and the foam padding and thus may be considered a bladder. Thus, the combination of the first and second outer skin layers into Galbreath would still be considered a bladder as that space would still remain between the skin layers and the padding.
Applicant argues that the motivation to combine Soliven with Galbreath and Yin to arrive at the claimed bladder structure has not been adequately articulated.
The argument is not found persuasive as the combination has been explained in the previous point.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights