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 .
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(s) 1, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashford A. Galbreath et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0018329 A1 (Galbreath).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18, Galbreath discloses a method for producing vehicle seats, the method comprising: forming a lot of universal foam support bases, wherein each universal foam support base has a base compression strength (Figure 3 Element 34 [0022-0023]), wherein each universal foam support base has an upper surface (Element 36) and a lower surface (Element 38), and wherein the lower surface is configured for mounting to a vehicle seat frame (Element 30 with Element 62), and wherein the upper surface of each universal foam support base has a predetermined size and contour configured to receive different molded upper seat portions having different shapes ([0049]); determining desired parameters for a desired vehicle seat ([0048-0049]); constructing pieces of trim to form an outer surface for the desired vehicle seat ([0020], Element 22); contacting each piece of trim with a foam material to form intermediate products (Element 32), wherein each intermediate product includes a foam layer and a trim layer ([0050-0052]), wherein the foam layer has a thickness of at least forty millimeters ([0048], 20-100mm range), and wherein the foam layer has an upper compression strength less than the base compression strength ([0047]); processing the intermediate products to form molded upper seat portions having a uniform shape, wherein a thickness of each intermediate product ranges from less than ten millimeters to at least forty millimeters; and mounting each molded upper seat portion directly to the upper surface of a respective universal foam support base to form the vehicle seats having the desired parameters ([0052]).
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, 3, 11, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashford A. Galbreath et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0018329 A1 (Galbreath) in view of Michael H. Panczyk et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0228455 A1 (Panczyk).
Regarding claims 2, 11, 17, 19, 20, Galbreath discloses the method wherein the universal foam support base and foam layer have distinct material properties ([0048-0049] ,[0052], dimensions variable for manufacturing methods varied from claim 1 disclosure). Galbreath does not directly disclose the foam base to have 40% compression force deflection that is from 1.1 to 2.0 times greater than a 40% compression force deflection of the foam layer, and wherein a composite of the foam layer and the universal foam support base has a combined support factor of at least 2. Panczyk discloses the modification of material properties of foam materials ([0028]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath as taught by Panczyk to include Panczyk’s variable strength and density of the foam material for a cushion. Such a modification would provide a means to design a cushion with optimal support properties for enhanced comfort for the users.
Regarding claim 3, Galbreath in view of Panczyk discloses the method wherein the vehicle seats having the desired parameters include a first vehicle seat and a second vehicle seat, the first vehicle seat including a first molded upper seat portion mounted directly to the upper surface of a first universal foam support base from the lot, the second vehicle seat including a second molded upper seat portion mounted directly to the upper surface of a second universal foam support base from the lot, the first universal foam support base and the second universal foam support base having a same configuration, and the first molded upper seat portion and the second molded upper seat portion having different sizes ([0048-0049] ,[0052], dimensions variable for manufacturing methods varied from claim 1 disclosure, Galbreath).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashford A. Galbreath et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0018329 A1 (Galbreath) in view of Michael H. Panczyk et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0228455 A1 (Panczyk) in view of Tony M. Pokorzynski et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2001/0001687 A1 (Pokorzynski).
Regarding claim 4, Galbreath in view of Panczyk discloses the method and the seat having a piece of trim (Element 22, Galbreath) with foam material. Galbreath in view of Panczyk does not directly disclose the trim with foam material to be formed by pouring liquid foam on the trim. Pokorzynski discloses a method wherein contacting the piece of trim with the foam material to form the intermediate product comprises pouring a liquid foam onto the piece of trim ([0020]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk as taught by Pokorzynski to include Pokorzynski’s method to pour liquid foam to the trim. Such a modification would provide a means to enhanced support surface for the seat.
Regarding claim 5, Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski discloses the method and the seat wherein processing the intermediate product to form the molded upper seat portion comprises thermoforming the intermediate product (Figure 1 Element 32 with Element 22 [0044, 0048-0049], Panczyk).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashford A. Galbreath et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0018329 A1 (Galbreath) in view of Michael H. Panczyk et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0228455 A1 (Panczyk) in view of Pokorzynski in view of Shinji Takakura et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0126606 A1 (Takakura).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski discloses the method, the vehicle, and the seat wherein: each universal foam support base has a peripheral edge (Figure 1 Element 32, Galbreath). Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski does not directly disclose a hook portion. Takakura discloses a method comprising a foam support (Element 2) each molded upper seat portion has a hook portion (Element 4a); and mounting each molded upper seat portion directly to the upper surface of a respective universal foam support base to form the vehicle seats having the desired parameters comprises engaging the respective hook portion and peripheral edge (Figure 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski as taught by Takakura to include Takakura’s hook portion. Such a modification would provide a means to secure the upper seat portion to the support base for a durable support seat.
Regarding claim 7, Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura discloses the method wherein the molded upper seat portion has a thickness differential of at least thirty millimeters, the thickness differential being a difference between a maximum thickness and a minimum thickness of the molded upper seat portion, and the trim layer is formed from a material selected from leather, faux leather, vinyl, and fabric. ([0048-0050], [0052], dimensions variable for manufacturing methods varied from claim 1 disclosure, Galbreath).
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashford A. Galbreath et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0018329 A1 (Galbreath) in view of Michael H. Panczyk et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0228455 A1 (Panczyk) in view of Pokorzynski in view of Shinji Takakura et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0126606 A1 (Takakura) in view of Thomas Brendgord U.S. Patent 3,908,831 (Brendgord) in view of Iris Wegner et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0312958 A1 (Wegner) further in view of Olay Sadoo et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0253542 A1 (Sadoo) in view of Marc Stauske et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0072804 A1 (Stauske).
Regarding claims 8-20, Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura discloses the method but does not disclose storing support bases and haptic component. Brendgord discloses the method of storing objects in a storage system (Figure 1-3).
Therefore it would have been an obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing d ate of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura as taught by Brendgord to include Brendgord’s method of storing goods. Such a modification would a provide a means to store cushion materials when storage is needed.
Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord does not directly disclose haptic components integrated into the foam support. Wegner discloses a cushion with a haptic element on a support ([0040]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord as taught by Wegner to include Wegner’s haptic element. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance the support cushion experience for the user.
Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord in view of Wegner does not disclose a heating element incorporated with the support. Sadoo discloses heating components with the seat support that include heating and ventilation elements ([0029-0030]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord in view of Wegner as taught by Sadoo to include Sadoo’s heating and ventilation element. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance the support cushion experience for the user.
Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord in view of Wegner in view of Sadoo does not directly disclose a rail on the cabin floor. Stauske discloses a vehicle seat with frame structure with base tracks mounted on the cabinet floor and seat rails for sliding engagement ([0033]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbreath in view of Panczyk in view of Pokorzynski in view of Takakura in view of Brendgord in view of Wegner in view of Sadoo as taught by Stauske to include Stauske’s rails. Such a modification would provide a means to adjust the seat for the comfort of the user.
Further structural limitations disclosed by the prior art of claims 1-7 are to be referred.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights