May 15, 2026
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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 1, so far as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE BAEK HEE et al. (KR 102187558 B1 and KR 102187559 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, LEE BAEK HEE et al. teach a headrest comprising: a first headrest structure 100; a second headrest structure 200; and a vibration isolator 110 operatively positioned between the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure, the vibration isolator being configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile, the non-linear stiffness profile including a region of quasi-zero stiffness (see the specification of both patents where it reads “each of the contact ribs 110 exhibits a non-linear characteristic in which stiffness varies depending on a position where vibration is input, and the support stiffness of the pole guide is variably adjusted.”).
Claim 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishimoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,308,236 B2).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Ishimoto et al. teaches a headrest comprising: a first headrest structure; a second headrest structure; and a vibration isolator 50 operatively positioned between the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure, the vibration isolator being configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile, the non-linear stiffness profile including a region of quasi-zero stiffness
As for claim 17, Ishimoto et al. teach that the first headrest structure is a headrest plate, and wherein the second headrest structure is a headrest shaft.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilievski et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,293,718 B1).
PNG
media_image3.png
376
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claims 1 and 18, Ilievski et al. teach a headrest comprising: a first headrest structure (see annotated Fig. 2 above); a second headrest structure 206b; and a vibration isolator 208 operatively positioned between the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure. Ilievski et al. teach do not teach that the vibration isolator 208 is configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile, the non-linear stiffness profile including a region of quasi-zero stiffness. However, Ilievski et al. teach do teach that vibration isolator 208 dos have adjustable stiffness values, that is, the spring systems 208 have stiffness values that can be varied, changed, or adjusted (see column 3, lines 35-44, where it reads “The springs 204a,b,c are sets of passive, or fixed, stiffness leaf springs extending generally in series and/or parallel with each other to form the surface contours of the support surfaces 202a,b. In order to improve the anti-vibration performance of the seating system 200, the support surfaces 202a,b formed by the springs 204a,b,c are coupled to the frames 206a,b by spring systems 208 having adjustable stiffness values, that is, the spring systems 208 have stiffness values that can be varied, changed, or adjusted.” Ilievski et al. also teach that vibration isolator 308 that has stiffness values that change in a non-linear manner (see column 5, lines 3-16 where it reads “Stiffness values of the spring system 308 change in a non-linear manner, as the buckling elements 322 can be designed as bendable structures with directional instabilities. In other words, the spring 318 can be repositioned and the buckling elements 322 can be bent using the actuator 320 to achieve desirable stiffness properties. Combined with the damping effect of the passive springs 304a,c of the support surface 302a, the seating system 300 is able to quickly and effectively tune stiffness characteristics independent of the applied load (i.e., the weight of the vehicle occupant). The spring system 308 is an actively variable stiffness structure that can reduce vibrations transmitted from the road via the vehicle to the vehicle occupant. Reducing vibrations can reduce long-drive discomfort of vehicle occupants.” Therefore, the vibration isolator 208 could be replaced with a vibration isolator, such as vibration isolator 308, that can be configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile.
As for Claim 2, Ilievski et al. teach more than one isolator member operatively connected to each other but foes not teach a first isolator member configured to exhibit a positive stiffness profile; and a second isolator member configured to exhibit a negative stiffness profile. Since Ilievski et al. teach that the various vibration isolators are adjustable in stiffness and the vibration isolator 308 can exhibit negative stiffness (see the specification at column 4, lines 45-56 where it reads “The spring system 308 in FIG. 3 is a negative stiffness or stiffness-correcting device.”)., it would have been obvious to configure one of those isolators to exhibit positive stiffness and the other to exhibit negative stiffness to define the non-linear stiffness profile including the region of quasi-zero stiffness, wherein the positive stiffness profile of the first isolator member substantially matches the negative stiffness profile of the second isolator member., as defined in claim 3.
As for claims 4 and 19, Ilievski et al. teach that the first isolator member is a compression spring 318.
As for claims 5 and 19, Ilievski et al. teach isolator members 104a,b,c includes a spring material member arranged in an arched configuration (Ilievski et al. disclose that isolator members 104a,b,c are sets of leaf springs, which are normally are made from a spring material that is in an arched configuration).
As for claim 12, Ilievski et al. further includes a connecting structure operatively connected to the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure, wherein the connecting structure is configured to constrain a movement of the first headrest structure relative to the second headrest structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilievski et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,293,718 B1), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Gilmore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0144152 A1).
Ilievski et al. do not specify that the second isolator member includes one or more conical springs with a height to thickness ratio of more than about 1.41. However, Gilmore et al. teach isolator members that are conical shaped to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the any of the isolator members disclosed by Ilievski et al., configured as conical springs, as taught by Gilmore et al. since Ilievski et al., teach isolators in the form of different types of springs such as leaf springs and compressions springs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “However, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action has not accounted for quasi- zero stiffness. The reference to a "non-linear characteristic" does not equate to quasi-zero stiffness. It is worth noting that nowhere in the entire disclosure of Lee 1 or Lee 2 is quasi zero stiffness described, shown, or even suggested. Thus, Lee 1 and Lee 2 both fail to disclose "a vibration isolator operatively positioned between the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure, the vibration isolator being configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile, the non-linear stiffness profile including a region of quasi-zero stiffness." And that “Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishimoto Applicant respectfully disagrees. Neither reference appears to disclose "a vibration isolator operatively positioned between the first headrest structure and the second headrest structure, the vibration isolator being configured to exhibit a non-linear stiffness profile, the non-linear stiffness profile including a region of quasi-zero stiffness," as recited in claim 1”
However, the prior art above show springs that oppose each other (i.e., have forces in opposite directions), much like the “compression spring 153” and “spring material member 155” of the present invention. As a result, there would inherently be a region at which there is a region of quasi-zero stiffness, as disclosed in the present invention.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights