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 arguments filed 10 Nov 2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12 and 20 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. Specifically, the new ground of rejection neither relies on the reference to Knoff (US 7421750) as an anticipatory reference in the rejection of the above claims, nor relies on Knoff for teaching the newly presented limitation “the buffering plate is an inert foam”.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 and 15-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp 10-11) that the reference to Knoff fails to teach the relationship between the combustion rates of the layers meeting the limitations "buffering plate" and "fireproof plate". While Knoff is silent on the combustion rates, it would be obvious that the combustion rate of the fireproof plate would be lower than the buffering plate, as the fire-blocking layer 32 (which meets the limitation “fireproof plate”) is comprised of flame-retardant materials that are engineered to reduce flame spread and as such would necessarily have a lower combustion rate than the cushioning foam layer 33 (“buffering plate”). Knoff’s disclosure of the materials comprising the different plates, of the intended functions of the TPT values, and of the desired overall operation of the fireproof buffering structure are relied upon as teachings that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed relationship between the combustion rates. The rejection has been updated to provide more citations directed to the teachings that would suggest to a person of ordinary skill that it would be obvious to configure the combustion rate of the fireproof plate to be lower than the rate of the buffering plate. Moreover, while Knoff focuses on improving the gusset of the mattress (“fireproof buffering structure”), Knoff does disclose that the composition of the pillowtop of the mattress comprises the claimed plates.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 19 (pp 12-13) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference to Knoff fails to teach the specific sequence of fireproof and buffering plates recited in claim 19, and actually fails to teach structures that meet the limitation "plate".
As noted above, while Knoff focuses on improving the gusset of the mattress, Knoff does in fact teach that the pillowtop of the mattress comprises a quilted composite material having at least one fireproof plate, at least one buffering plate, a covering layer as an external layer, and a backing layer as an opposing external layer (col. 3: 32-33, 45-47; col. 4: 13-18); wherein the fireproof plate (32) is a fire blocking layer designed to prevent the cushioning foam that forms the buffering plate from being ignited (col. 3: 40-41). The layers that Knoff discloses are sheets of materials that fully encompass the term “plate”. While Knoff does not explicitly disclose the exact sequence of layers recited in claim 19, Knoff’s teaching of the various sequences would suggest to a person of ordinary skill that other sequences (including the sequence of claim 19) would be suitable for comprising the buffering structure; wherein the sequences of figures 4A and 5C combined would yield the claimed sequence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen (US 4779930), Wetterling (US 6228899) and Knoff (US 7421750).
Claim 1- Rosen discloses a fireproof buffering structure (infant head support H-1) of a child safety car seat (fig. 3, shown in phantom), comprising: a buffering plate (20) formed of polyurethane foam that is “somewhat dense” and is of a fire-resistant composition (col. 8: 50-60).
Rosen does not disclose the structure comprising two fireproof plates attached to the buffering plate and does not explicitly disclose the buffering plate being an inert foam having a density that is between 75 and 98 kg/m^3.
Wetterling discloses a process of making flexible polyurethane foams that includes mixing in an inert blowing agent (col. 5: 9-22), wherein the resulting foam has a density that is between 40 and 100 kg/m^3. Wetterling teaches that the polyurethane foam produced is suitable as upholstery elements like headrests (col. 5: 23-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure physical properties of the buffering structure of Rosen according to Wetterling’s teaching in order to yield the predictable result of providing the polyurethane foam buffering plate for a child safety car seat. Accordingly, the fireproof buffering structure of Rosen and Wetterling would comprise a buffering plate that is an inert foam having a density of 75-98 kg/m^3.
Knoff teaches a fireproof buffering structure (col. 2: 51-59) comprising: a fireproof plate (32) having opposing first and second surfaces; a buffering plate (33) attached to the first surface of fireproof plate (figs. 4A-5E); and a first auxiliary fireproof plate (32) attached to the second surface of the fireproof plate (fig. 5A); wherein the buffering plate (33) is formed of polyurethane foam (col. 6: 18-21, 32-34). Knoff teaches that the fireproof plates add flame/heat resistance to the buffering plate for improving fire blocking (col. 1: 57-67, col. 3: 40-45).
Rosen’s fireproof buffering structure is a cushion device used with a seat and Knoff’s fireproof buffering structure is a cushion device used with a bed, wherein both the seat and the bed are configured to support an occupant’s body. Rosen and Knoff both are concerned with configuring a buffering structure to be fireproof. As such, the structures of Rosen and Knoff are analogous.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buffering structure of Rosen with fireproof plates, as taught by Knoff, in order to improve the fire protection provided to the car seat occupant.
The modification would have yielded the predictable result of a fireproof buffering structure comprising a buffering plate, a fireproof plate, and an auxiliary fireproof plate coupled in that order.
Claim 3- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, and Knoff further teaches wherein the buffering plate (33) and the fireproof plate (32) are attached to each other by stitching (col. 6: 35-45).
Knoff does not teach the plates being attached to each other by glue or twin adhesive.
However, selecting an attachment method suitable for forming the plates into a completed buffering structure is considered a matter of design choice when the attachment method yields the predictable result of providing a final structure of attached plates.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the recited “glue or twin adhesive” to attach the buffering and fireproof plates since the selection would yield the predictable result of providing the fireproof buffering structure of Knoff.
It would have been obvious for the buffering structure of Rosen, modified by Knoff, to comprise the buffering plate and the fireproof plate attached to each other by glue or twin adhesive.
Claim 4- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein the buffering plate of Rosen (20) is polyurethane foam and the buffering plate (33) of Knoff is polyurethane foam.
The difference between these references and the instant claim is the references do not explicitly recite a combustion rate of the fireproof and buffering plates, wherein the rate of the fireproof plate is lower than that of the buffering plate.
However, Knoff does teach the material properties of the fireproof and buffering plates (like the material fibers- col. 5:16-33, and the thermal performance temperatures TPT- col. 5: 29-36 & col. 7: 41-47) such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the combustion rates as claimed.
Knoff teaches that the pillowtop layer of a mattress comprises a quilted composite material having the fireproof plate, the buffering plate, a cover layer and a backing layer (col. 3: 32-33, 45-47; col. 4: 13-18); wherein the fireproof plate (32) is a fire blocking layer of cellulose fiber and heat resistant fiber (col. 4: 46-52), and wherein the cellulose fiber (namely a viscose fiber, col. 5: 16-17) provides fire-blocking properties and the heat resistant fiber is flame resistant (col. 5: 29-33). Knoff teaches that the fire-blocking properties are provided to prevent the foam forming the buffering plate (the cushioning foam 32) from being ignited (col. 3: 40-41). While Knoff does not recite the “combustion rate” of the fireproof and buffering plates, the configuration of the TPT and the fireproof plate fibers to achieve prevention of buffering plate ignition would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it would be suitable to configure a combustion rate of the fireproof plate (fire blocker 32) to be lower than a combustion rate of the buffering plate of Knoff’s buffering structure, and consequently Rosen’s buffering structure.
Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the car seat of Rosen with the plate structure configurations, as taught by Knoff, in order to yield the predictable result of the fireproof plates preventing ignition of the buffering plate. And the combustion rate of the fireproof plate would be lower than the combustion rate of the buffering plate.
Claim 6- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Knoff teaches that the fireproof plate (32) would comprise at least one of: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), expanded polystyrene (EPS), expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polystyrene (EPO), fireproof foam, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), and botanical cotton (col. 4: 46-48, the cellulose fiber comprising the blocker 32 is a natural polymer formed from cotton plant).
Claim 7- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Knoff teaches that the fireproof buffering structure would comprise a plurality of fireproof plates (fire blockers 32), and at least two of the plurality of fireproof plates are made of different materials (col. 7: 18-19).
Claim 8- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, with the exception of a thickness of the fireproof buffering structure being substantially less than about 13 mm. However, Knoff does teach that it is obvious to configure multiple physical characteristics of the plate, including weight and thickness (col. 6: 24-27, 10: 55-67); in one example (col. 10: 55-67), Knoff teaches configuring the plates of the structure with particular thicknesses suitable for the purposes of testing such that the structure thickness is close to 13 mm. And selecting a suitable thickness for the buffering structure that is thinner than about 13 mm and capable of providing the desired fireproof cushioning function is considered a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the structure of Rosen modified by Knoff with physical dimensions suitable for providing the fireproof buffering plate; accordingly, selecting a thickness of the fireproof buffering structure being substantially less than about 13 mm involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 9- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Knoff teaches that the first auxiliary fireproof plate (32) would comprise at least one of: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), expanded polystyrene (EPS), expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polystyrene (EPO), fireproof foam, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), and botanical cotton (col. 4: 46-48, the cellulose fiber comprising the blocker 32 is a natural polymer formed from cotton plant).
Claim 10- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Knoff teaches that the first auxiliary fireproof plate (32) would have a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface, the third surface of the first auxiliary fireproof plate is attached to the second surface of the fireproof plate (32), and the fireproof buffering structure would further comprise a second buffering plate (33) attached to the fourth surface of the first auxiliary fireproof plate (fig. 5C shows the claimed sequence comprising the buffering plate 33, the fireproof plate 32, the auxiliary fireproof plate 32, the second buffering plate 33).
Claim 11- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 10, wherein Knoff teaches that the buffering plate is a first buffering plate (33) having a fifth surface and a sixth surface opposite to the fifth surface, the fifth surface of the first buffering plate is attached to the first surface of the fireproof plate (32). Knoff does not disclose the fireproof buffering structure further comprises a second auxiliary fireproof plate (32) attached to the sixth surface of the first buffering plate. Knoff teaches the buffering structure can be defined by a composite (figs. 4A- 5E) comprising a variety of buffering and fireproof plate arrangements (30-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second auxiliary fireproof plate of Rosen’s buffering structure modified by Knoff in order to yield the predictable result of providing the fireproof buffering structure.
Claim 12- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Knoff teaches that the fireproof buffering structure would further comprise a second buffering plate (33) attached to the first auxiliary fireproof plate (fig. 5C), wherein a combustion rate of each of the first and second auxiliary fireproof plates is lower than a combustion rate of any one of the first and second buffering plates (Knoff discloses that the fireproof plates 32 are more flame/height resistant than the buffering plates 33, col. 5: 29-36, col. 6: 18-27). Knoff does not disclose the structure further comprising a second auxiliary fireproof plate (32) attached between the second buffering plate (33) and the first auxiliary fireproof plate (32). Knoff teaches the buffering structure can be defined by a composite (figs. 4A- 5E) comprising a variety of buffering and fireproof plate arrangements (30-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a second auxiliary fireproof plate in Rosen’s structure as modified by Knoff in order to yield the predictable result of providing a fireproof buffering structure.
Claim 20- Rosen, Wetterling and Knoff teach the fireproof buffering structure of claim 1, wherein Rosen teaches the fireproof buffering structure is configured to be attached to at least one of a seat portion, a side portion, a backrest portion, and a headrest portion of a main body of a child safety car seat (figs. 3, 8).
Claim(s) 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakhla (US 2005/0099044) in view of Knoff (US 7421750).
Claim 13- Nakhla discloses a child safety car seat (fig. 1) comprising: a buffering structure comprising a buffering plate (64A’), and a covering member including a covering pocket (67) having a receiving space (fig. 4). Nakhla teaches the buffering plate is a comfort foam (¶ [0042]) that covers an energy absorbing foam block (63A’).
The difference between Nakhla and the claimed invention is Nakhla does not teach the buffering structure being fireproof and comprising a buffering plate attached to a fireproof plate, wherein a combustion rate of the fireproof plate is lower than a combustion rate of the buffering plate.
Knoff teaches a fireproof buffering structure (col. 2: 51-59) comprising: a fireproof plate (32); and a buffering plate (33) attached to the fireproof plate (figs. 4A-5E); wherein the buffering plate comprises fireproof foam (col. 6: 32-34) and the fireproof plate adds flame/heat resistance to the buffering plate (col. 1: 57-67); wherein the inclusion of the fireproof plate yields a conventional configuration for a body support cushion (mattress); and wherein the material properties of the fireproof plate (32) and the buffering plate (33) teaches that a combustion rate of the fireproof plate would be lower than that of the buffering plate (col. 5: 29-36, col. 6: 18-27). Knoff teaches that the buffering structure covers a mattress which is disclosed as conventionally comprising foam (col. 1: 24-29), such that the fireproof buffering structure covers a foam block defined by the mattress.
Knoff also teaches that the pillowtop layer of a mattress comprises a quilted composite material having the fireproof plate, the buffering plate, a cover layer and a backing layer (col. 3: 32-33, 45-47; col. 4: 13-18); wherein the fireproof plate (32) is a fire blocking layer of cellulose fiber and heat resistant fiber (col. 4: 46-52), wherein the cellulose fiber (namely a viscose fiber, col. 5: 16-17) provides fire-blocking properties and the heat resistant fiber is flame resistant (col. 5: 29-33). Knoff teaches that the fire-blocking properties are provided to prevent the foam forming the buffering plate (the cushioning foam 32) from being ignited (col. 3: 40-41). While Knoff does not recite the “combustion rate” of the fireproof and buffering plates, the configuration of the fireproof plate fibers to achieve prevention of buffering plate ignition would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it would be suitable to configure a combustion rate of the fireproof plate (fire blocker 32) to be lower than a combustion rate of the buffering plate of Knoff’s buffering structure, and consequently Nakhla’s buffering structure.
Accordingly, Nakhla and Knoff teach it is well-known in the art to cover a body-supporting foam block with a buffering structure comprising a foam buffering plate.
Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the car seat of Nakhla with a fireproof buffering structure, as taught by Knoff, in order to add fire protection for the car seat occupant.
The modification would have yielded the predictable result of a car seat comprising a fireproof buffering structure accommodated inside the receiving space of a covering member pocket, wherein the combustion rate of the fireproof plate would be lower than that of the buffering plate.
Claim 15- Nakhla and Knoff teach the child safety car seat of claim 13, wherein the covering member taught by Nakhla (fig. 4) would further comprise a head supporting portion (64C) and two flanking portions (60A’, 60B’) connected with two sides of the head supporting portion, and the fireproof buffering structure taught by Knoff would be accommodated in the two flanking portions.
Claim 16- Nakhla and Knoff teach the child safety car seat of claim 15, wherein Knoff teaches a soft filler (31) is disposed on a surface of the fireproof buffering structure (figs. 4A-5E) that would be accommodated in the two flanking portions of Nakhla.
Claim 17- Nakhla and Knoff teach the child safety car seat of claim 13, wherein Knoff teaches the fireproof plate (32) is closer to a fabric cover (31) that would function to contact a seat occupant, such that the plate would be closer to a seating space of Nakhla’s child safety car seat than the buffering plate, the seating space being the space that a child occupies during use.
Claim 18- Nakhla and Knoff teach the child safety car seat of claim 13, wherein Nakhla teaches that their fireproof buffering structure would be attached on a side portion, a backrest portion and a headrest portion of a main body of the child safety car seat (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoff (US 7421750).
Claim 19- Knoff discloses a fireproof buffering structure having the plates (col. 2: 51-59) as claimed, the fireproof buffering structure comprising:
a fireproof plate (32) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (top and bottom surfaces);
a first buffering plate (33) attached to the first surface of the fireproof plate (figs. 4A-5E); and
(with reference to fig. 5C) a first auxiliary fireproof plate (32) having a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface, the third surface of the first auxiliary fireproof plate is attached to the second surface of the fireproof plate (32); and
a second buffering plate (33) attached to the fourth surface of the first auxiliary fireproof plate;
wherein the first buffering plate (33) includes a fifth surface and a sixth surface opposite to the fifth surface, the fifth surface of the first buffering plate is attached to the first surface of the fireproof plate (32) (fig. 5C shows the claimed sequence comprising the buffering plate 33, the fireproof plate 32, the auxiliary fireproof plate 32, the second buffering plate 33).
Knoff does not explicitly disclose the fireproof buffering structure further comprises a second auxiliary fireproof plate (32) attached to the sixth surface of the first buffering plate.
However, Knoff teaches that the buffering structure can be defined by a composite (figs. 4A- 5E) comprising a variety of buffering and fireproof plate arrangements (30-42), including an arrangement (fig. 4A) comprising a fireproof plate (32) attached to a second surface of a first buffering plate (33) which is opposite a first surface of the first buffering plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second auxiliary fireproof plate attached to the sixth surface of the first buffering plate (shown in fig. 5C) in order to yield the predictable result of providing the composite fireproof buffering structure.
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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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 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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636