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 § 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.
Claims 8, 9, 12, 14, and 19 are 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.
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 19 recite “pseudo-bistable” which is indefinite, because it is unclear from the specification what the metes and bounds are of a pseudo-bistable material and/or what the structure consists of.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fluid bladder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-5, 10, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raines (US 2018/0290570 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raines discloses a seat assembly for seating a user on a floor structure (fig. 4), the seat assembly comprising:
a seat base (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) configured to abut the floor structure (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below, the seat base abuts the floor 34);
a seat bottom (cushion 14, fig. 4) attached to the seat base (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below, cushion 14 is attached to the seat base) and configured to seat thereon the user (fig. 1);
a seat back (seatback 16, fig. 4) pivotably attached to the seat base adjacent the seat bottom (as shown in fig. 6); and
first and second side bolsters attached to first and second sides, respectively, of the seat bottom or the seat back, the first and second side bolsters each including (Para. [0039], “[i]t is noted that seatback 16 can include multiple bolster regions 42 at various locations there along, depending on the particular configuration of seatback 16 and/or of vehicle seat 10 overall…[i]n such an example, seatback 16 may include bolsters 42 on opposite sides thereof so as to be positioned outward of the side seating positions 48”; see bolster 42 in the cutaway view of figs. 6 & 7): a foam core (foam layer 52, fig. 4) defining a cavity (fig. 4);
a bolster trim covering the foam core (Para. [0042], “[s]eatback 16 may also include a foam layer 52 generally surrounding and/or extending away from support 44 and supporting a coverstock 54 that includes a fabric or leather outer layer that defines seatback surface 32”; as shown in fig. 6, the seatback surface 32 covers the foam layer 52); and
a bolster insert (bladder 18, fig. 4) interposed between the bolster trim and the foam core (as shown in fig. 6, the bladder 18 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the foam layer 52), the bolster insert including a hollow elastic body (fig. 6) configured to collapse from a deployed state to a retracted state under a compressive force when the seat back is pivoted against the seat bottom, and to snap back from the retracted state to the deployed state upon pivoting of the seat back away from the seat bottom (as shown in figs. 4 & 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Raines’s fig. 4
Regarding claim 2, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first and second side bolsters each further includes a padded topper layer (coverstock 54, fig. 7) interposed between the bolster trim and the bolster insert (as shown in figs. 6 & 7, the coverstock 54 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the bladder 18).
Regarding claim 3, Raines discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the bolster trim (seatback surface 32, fig. 4) abuts and lays flush against the padded topper layer (as shown in figs. 4-7, the seatback surface 32 abuts and lays flush against the coverstock 54), and the padded topper layer abuts and lays flush against the bolster insert (as shown in figs. 4-7, the coverstock 54 abuts and lays flush against the bladder 18).
Regarding claim 4, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the cavity is interposed between the foam core and the bolster insert such that a center portion of the hollow elastic body collapses into the cavity when in the retracted state (as shown in figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 5, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the foam core (foam layer 52, figs. 4 & 6) abuts and lays flush against the bolster insert (as shown in figs. 4 & 6, the foam layer 52 abuts and lays flush against the bladder 18), and the cavity is defined within the foam core (as shown in figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 10, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the hollow elastic body has an open base rigidly anchored to an internal frame structure of the seat bottom or the seat back (as shown in figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 15, Raines discloses a method of assembling a seat assembly for seating a user on a floor structure, the method comprising:
receiving a seat base configured to abut and/or mount to the floor structure (fig. 1);
attaching a seat bottom (cushion 14, fig. 4) to the seat base (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below, cushion 14 is attached to the seat base), the seat bottom being configured to seat thereon the user (fig. 1);
attaching a seat back (seatback 16, fig. 4) to the seat base adjacent the seat bottom (as shown in fig. 6), the seat back being configured to pivot between a folded position and an upright position (as shown in fig. 6); and
attaching first and second side bolsters to first and second sides, respectively, of the seat bottom or the seat back (Para. [0039], “[i]t is noted that seatback 16 can include multiple bolster regions 42 at various locations there along, depending on the particular configuration of seatback 16 and/or of vehicle seat 10 overall…[i]n such an example, seatback 16 may include bolsters 42 on opposite sides thereof so as to be positioned outward of the side seating positions 48”; see bolster 42 in the cutaway view of figs. 6 & 7), the first and second side bolsters each including:
a foam core (foam layer 52, fig. 4) defining a cavity (fig. 4);
a bolster trim covering the foam core (Para. [0042], “[s]eatback 16 may also include a foam layer 52 generally surrounding and/or extending away from support 44 and supporting a coverstock 54 that includes a fabric or leather outer layer that defines seatback surface 32”; as shown in fig. 6, the seatback surface 32 covers the foam layer 52); and
a bolster insert (bladder 18, fig. 4) interposed between the bolster trim and the foam core (as shown in fig. 6, the bladder 18 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the foam layer 52), the bolster insert including a hollow elastic body (fig. 6) configured to collapse from a deployed state to a retracted state under a compressive force when the seat back is pivoted against the seat bottom, and to snap back from the retracted state to the deployed state upon pivoting of the seat back away from the seat bottom (as shown in figs. 4 & 6).
Regarding claim 16, Raines discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the first and second side bolsters each further includes a padded topper layer (coverstock 54, fig. 7) interposed between the bolster trim and the bolster insert (as shown in figs. 6 & 7, the coverstock 54 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the bladder 18), wherein the bolster trim (seatback surface 32, fig. 4) abuts and lays flush against the padded topper layer (as shown in figs. 4-7, the seatback surface 32 abuts and lays flush against the coverstock 54), and the padded topper layer abuts and lays flush against the bolster insert (as shown in figs. 4-7, the coverstock 54 abuts and lays flush against the bladder 18).
Regarding claim 20, Raines discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the hollow elastic body has an open base rigidly anchored to an internal frame structure of the seat bottom or the seat back (figs. 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Nageshkar et al. (US 11,027,635 B1), hereinafter Nageshkar.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Raines discloses the invention in claims 1 and 15 above, respectively, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hollow elastic body has an arcuate shape with a semi-elliptical cross-section when in the deployed state and has a waveform cross-section with multiple peaks and a valley when in the retracted state.
However, Nageshkar is in the field of a vehicle seating assembly (Abstract) and teaches a [shape changing bladder] (see figs. 5A-5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Raines such that bladder has a different shape in the retracted and deployed state as taught by Nageshkar, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 7-9, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines (US 2018/0290570 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Raines discloses the invention in claims 1 and 15 above, respectively, and further discloses wherein the hollow elastic body has a first center height when in the deployed state (fig. 4) and a second center height when in the retracted state (fig. 6), but does not appear to specifically disclose the first center height being at least 1.5 times larger than the second center height.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the center height of the hollow elastic body in the deployed state to be 1.5 times larger than the second center height, in order to provide support for the user, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection, Raines discloses the invention in claims 1 and 15 above, respectively, and further discloses wherein the hollow elastic body is pseudo-bistable (as shown in figs. 4 & 6, the bladder 18 reverts back to its original configuration), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hollow elastic body is formed from a compliant viscoelastic polymer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hollow elastic body to be formed from a compliant viscoelastic polymer since the material is well known to offer significant benefits in comfort, pressure management, and stability. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating CHo. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the hollow elastic body is pseudo-bistable (as shown in figs. 4 & 6, the bladder 18 reverts back to its original configuration), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hollow elastic body is a polymeric semi-ellipsoidal dome with an open elliptical base.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the different portions of the hollow elastic body of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hollow elastic body to be formed of polymer since the material is well known to offer significant benefits in comfort, pressure management, and stability, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating CHo. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Raines discloses a motor vehicle (Para. [0001]), comprising:
a vehicle body defining a passenger compartment with a vehicle floor plate (vehicle 12 & vehicle seat; fig. 1);
a plurality of road wheels attached to the vehicle body (vehicle 12, fig. 1); and
a vehicle seat assembly disposed inside the passenger compartment (Para. [0033], “[s]uch a folding configuration can also be used in one or more of the front seats of the associated vehicle, such as the passenger-side front seat) and including:
a seat base mounted onto the vehicle floor plate (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above);
a seat bottom attached to the seat base and configured to seat thereon a user (fig. 1);
a seat back (seatback 16, fig. 4) pivotably attached to the seat base adjacent the seat bottom (as shown in fig. 6); and
first and second side bolsters adjoining first and second sides, respectively, of the seat bottom or the seat back (Para. [0039], “[i]t is noted that seatback 16 can include multiple bolster regions 42 at various locations there along, depending on the particular configuration of seatback 16 and/or of vehicle seat 10 overall…[i]n such an example, seatback 16 may include bolsters 42 on opposite sides thereof so as to be positioned outward of the side seating positions 48”; see bolster 42 in the cutaway view of figs. 6 & 7), the first and second side bolsters each including:
a foam core (foam layer 52, fig. 4) defining a cavity (fig. 4);
a bolster trim covering the foam core (Para. [0042], “[s]eatback 16 may also include a foam layer 52 generally surrounding and/or extending away from support 44 and supporting a coverstock 54 that includes a fabric or leather outer layer that defines seatback surface 32”; as shown in fig. 6, the seatback surface 32 covers the foam layer 52);
a padded topper layer (coverstock 54, fig. 7) located between the bolster trim and the foam core (as shown in figs. 6 & 7, the coverstock 54 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the bladder 18); and
a bolster insert (bladder 18, fig. 4) covered by the bolster trim and sandwiched between the padded topper layer and the foam core (as shown in fig. 6, the bladder 18 is interposed between the seatback surface 32 and the foam layer 52), the bolster insert including a hollow pseudo-bistable body (as shown in figs. 4 & 6, the bladder 18 reverts back to its original configuration) configured to collapse from a deployed state to a retracted state under a compressive force of the seat back when pivoted against the seat bottom, and to passively snap back from the retracted state to the deployed state upon pivoting of the seat back away from the seat bottom (as shown in figs. 4 & 6).
However, Raines does not appear to specifically disclose that the vehicle seat body is made of
polymer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hollow body to be formed of a polymer due to its high durability properties. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating CHo. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raines as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vento (US 5,441,331 A).
Regarding claim 13, Raines discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the cavity is filled with an ultra-low density flexible foam filler.
However, Vento is in the field of a seating assembly for use in a motor vehicle (Abstract) and teaches wherein the cavity is filled with an ultra-low density flexible foam filler1 (Col. 7, lines 58-62, “[a]s shown best in FIG. 2, each of the cushions is formed in large part by a filler with the cover overlying the filler and defining the shape of the cushion. Preferred fillers include polyurethane foam and densified fiber batting”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Raines such that an ultra-low density flexible foam filler was used as taught by Vento, since it is well known to provide excellent cushioning, sound insulation, and long-term durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s invention. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
1 Interpretation note: In the same manner as the instant invention, the foam filler is polyurethane foam. See Para. [0010] of the instant specification.