June 5, 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 with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
In claim 6, lines 2 and 4 (2 instances), “the first slits” lack antecedent basis. In claim 1, Applicant has only claimed “at least one first slit”, which suggests there is at least one but does not claim that there are more than one or a plurality of slits.
The aforementioned problem renders the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pouch (U.S. Patent No.5,079,790).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
251
199
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
316
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 21, Pouch teaches a support structure A, wherein the support structure comprises:
a support body (see the annotated Fig. 1 above showing the ”support body” formed by the four (4) of outer perimeter foam springs)
; and at least one buffer portion, provided within the support body, wherein the buffer portion comprises a plurality of buffer blocks B provided adjacent to each other, the buffer portion defining a support surface 12, a back surface opposite the support surface, a top surface 8b extending between the support surface and the back surface, a bottom surface 8a extending between the support surface and the back surface and a side surface extending between the support surface and the back surface, and the buffer blocks are connected to each other along the top surface, the bottom surface, and the side surface;
wherein at least one first slit is provided on a penetrates from the support surface of the buffer portion to the back surface of the buffer portion, the at least one first slit divides dividing the buffer portion into the plurality of the buffer blocks.
As for Claim 2, Pouch teaches that the plurality of the buffer blocks are connected to each other at least at the back surface of the buffer portion opposite the support surface along the top surface, bottom surface, and the side surface.
As for Claim 4, Pouch teaches that the adjacent buffer blocks respectively form cross sections facing and in contact with each other through the at least one first slit.
As for Claim 5, Pouch teaches that the adjacent buffer blocks respectively form cross sections facing each other through the at least one first slit, and a gap exists between adjacent cross sections (see Figures 4 and 6).
As for Claims 6-8, 12, and 21, Pouch teaches that a plurality of the first slits extend in a longitudinal direction of the support surface and are arranged along a lateral direction of the support surface; or a plurality of the first slits extend in the lateral direction of the support surface and are arranged along the longitudinal direction of the support surface; wherein at least one second slit is provided on penetrates the support surface and extends toward the back surface, and the at least one second slit intersects the first slit; wherein the at least one first slit extends in a longitudinal direction of the support surface, and the at least one second slit extends in a lateral direction of the support surface (Pouch teaches slits extending in both the longitudinal direction and lateral direction).
As for claims 9 and 21, Pouch teaches that the first slit extends in an oblique direction of the support surface, and the second slit extends in another oblique direction of the support surface by simply turning the cushion in a certain direction.
As for claim 10, Pouch teaches that the support body and the buffer portion are integrally formed as a whole.
As for claim 11, Pouch teaches that a plurality of the buffer portions are provided in parallel within the support body.
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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouch (U.S. Patent No.5,079,790) in view of KAWANO (CN 113492739 A).
Pouch teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach an accommodating portion as defined in Claim 13.
PNG
media_image4.png
212
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, KAWANO teaches the concept of support body 50 that includes an accommodating portion 56 to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use the support structure, as taught by Pouch, with a support body that include an accommodating portion, as taught by KAWANO, to since the support body and its accommodating portion would provide extra support to a person for whatever the support structure is being used for, such as a child seat.
As for Claim 14, KAWANO also teaches a buffer portion that comprises a support surface, wherein a middle portion of the support surface in a longitudinal direction protrudes forwardly, and a bottom end of the support surface is bent forward; the back surface, wherein the back surface is opposite to the support surface, and a bottom end of the back surface is bent forward; the top surface, wherein the top surface is inclined backward and downward; the bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface is opposite to the top surface, the bottom surface is inclined backward and downward, and the bottom surface is larger than the top surface; and two side surfaces, wherein the two side surfaces are opposite to each other and flat.
As for Claim 15, KAWANO also teaches that a thickness of the buffer portion at the top surface is less than a thickness of the buffer portion at the bottom surface.
As for claims 16-18, KAWANO teaches that the buffer portion is made of foam and that a hardness or density of the buffer portion is less than or equal to a hardness or density of the support body (see the specification where it reads "At least one of the hardness and shape of the first buffer body and the second buffer body is different"). The specific hardness and the material used to make the support body, as defined in claims 17-18, again is a design choice that is dependent on the on the manufacturer since the type of material used to make both the buffer portion and the support body is not limited to any specific type.
As for claim 19, KAWANO teaches a seat cushion structure, wherein the seat cushion structure comprises: a seat cushion; the support structure according to claim 1; and a cover member, wherein the seat cushion is connected to the cover member, and the seat cushion and cover member are located on the support surface of the support structure.
As for claim 20, KAWANO teaches a child safety seat, wherein the child safety seat comprises:
a seat body comprising a sitting portion and a backrest portion; and the seat cushion structure according to claim 19, mounted in a corner portion formed by the sitting portion and the backrest portion.
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.
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 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