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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 6-12 in the reply filed on 9 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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 6-12 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the height" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of the claim as “a height” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper vertex and the lower vertex" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “an upper vertex and a lower vertex” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “the plurality of ribs” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “the plurality of ribs” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the horizontal cross-section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as "a horizontal cross-section" and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the height" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of the claim as “a height” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper vertex and lower vertex" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “an upper vertex and a lower vertex” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “the plurality of ribs” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper and lower ends" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “an upper end and a lower end” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper vertex and lower vertex" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “an upper vertex and a lower vertex” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the side vertices" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of the claim as “side vertices” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper and lower vertices" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “an upper vertex and a lower vertex” and will be examined on the merits as such.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2018-0125275 A with a machine translation (filed 29 May 2026) (hereinafter “Kim”) being used as the English language equivalent translation, and further in view of KR 2019-0008801 A with a machine translation (filed 29 May 2026) (hereinafter “Lee”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 1 Kim teaches an elastic structure comprising fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a and a hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 that houses the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a, where the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a are connected to the fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 (at least one vertex of the elastic protrusion is connected to the edge of the inner surface of the three-dimensional column) to form a truss structure (abstract; paragraphs [0016], [0024] and [0025]; and Figures 1-4). Kim teaches the invention relates to a seat for ergonomic seating which improves blood circulation and prevent a variety of skin diseases with excellent breathability (abstract and paragraph [0001]). Kim does not explicitly teach at least some of the vertical cross-sections of the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a being triangular in shape. Lee teaches a mat comprising compression cells (elastic protrusion) 1200 comprising a plurality of ribs 1200A, 1200B having at least some of the vertical cross-sections being triangular in shape, where the compression cells have vent holes and at least one vertex of the triangular shape being connected to an edge of the vent hole (three-dimensional column) in the mat 110 (abstract; paragraphs [0052] – [0054], [0064], [0075] – [0082]; and Figures 1 and 9-10). Lee teaches the compression cells, when compressed, offer an acupressure effect which increases comfort felt by the user, and aids in promoting blood circulation (abstract, and paragraphs [0006] and [0017] – [0019]). Kim and Lee are analogous inventions in the field of compressive cushions which promote blood circulation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fixed ribs of Kim with the ribs of Lee to increase the comfort of the cushion by providing an acupressure effect thereon.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Lee teaches the first unit frame 120A and the second unit frame 120B (plurality of ribs) are orthogonal to each other (arranged to form the same angle around an axis (where the axis bisects the orthogonal angle)) (paragraph [0061]).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Kim teaches the elastic structure 35 (comprising the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a and the hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35) are stacked in a honeycomb lattice (elastic protrusion stacked with the same angle) (Figures 1 and 4). Kim teaches the elastic structure 35 distributes compression forces applied at an upper end of the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion) 35a to the hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 (Figure 4, and paragraphs [0016] and [0025]). Lee teaches the first unit frame 120A and the second unit frame 120B (elastic protrusion comprising a plurality of ribs) are orthogonal to each other (plurality of truss structures that are stacked with the same angle) (paragraph [0061]).Regarding claim 6 In addition, Kim teaches an end of the fixed rib (plurality of ribs) 35a is flush with the fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 (paragraphs [0016] – [0019], and Figures 1, 2 and 4), which corresponds to a height connecting an upper vertex and lower vertex of the plurality of ribs is equal to the height of the three-dimensional column. Regarding claim 10 In addition, Kim teaches the presence of six fixed ribs (plurality of ribs) 35a within a hexagonal honeycomb cell around a 360° rotation in the center of the cell 35 (axis connecting an upper vertex and a lower vertex) where the fixed ribs 35a meet (paragraphs [0024] – [0025], and Figure 4), which corresponds to the plurality of ribs are arranged at 60° angles relative to each other and share an axis connecting an upper vertex and a lower vertex.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0270718 (hereinafter “Poppe”).Regarding claim 4 The limitations for claim 2 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Kim and Lee does not explicitly teach the vertical cross-sectional shape of the elastic protrusion is a rhombus, formed by the plurality of ribs being combined around the axis. Poppe teaches a foam spring (elastic protrusion) 1 having a tubular body 2 made of foam and forming an outer wall with holes 3, where said holes 3 are arranged in a staggered symmetry and being diamond shaped extending in a vertical direction (vertical cross-sectional shape of the elastic protrusion is a rhombus) which is formed by a plurality of ribs (material adjacent the holes 3) and longitudinal reinforcement ribs 7 being combined around an axis (abstract, paragraph [0020], and Figure 1). Poppe teaches a major advantage with the foam spring is that, together with their even spacing in the tubular body of the spring, the reinforcement ribs allow for a very much improved distribution of the compression forces when the spring is under load (paragraphs [0021] and [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compression cells (elastic protrusion) from the combination of Kim and Lee with the holes 3 (including the plurality of ribs (material adjacent the holes 3)) and longitudinal reinforcement ribs 7 of Poppe to improve the distribution of compression forces when the compression cells (elastic protrusion) is under load.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 2011-0071943 A with a machine translation (concurrently filed) (hereinafter “Yang”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 7 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Kim and Lee does not explicitly teach a contraction-allowing groove formed between the plurality of ribs, allowing deformation due to vertical loads on the plurality of ribs, and the horizontal cross-section of the contraction-allowing groove is triangular. Yang teaches a cushion member comprising a shock absorbing space (contraction-allowing groove) 3 provided between ribs of a shock absorbing protrusion 2, where the shock absorbing space 3 serves to help the shock absorbing protrusions 2 to perform the buffering action (allowing deformation due to vertical loads on the ribs 2) while being elastically compressed and expanded, and the shock absorbing space (contraction-allowing groove) 3 being triangular (Figures 2-5 and paragraphs [0005] – [0007]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of ribs from the combination of Kim and Lee with the shock absorbing space (contraction-allowing groove) 3 of Yang to improve the compression absorbing characteristics of the plurality of ribs.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/235545 A1 with a machine translation (concurrently filed) (hereinafter “Ebe”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Kim teaches an end of the fixed rib (plurality of ribs) 35a is flush with the fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 (paragraphs [0016] – [0019], and Figures 1, 2 and 4), which corresponds to a height connecting an upper vertex and lower vertex of the plurality of ribs is equal to the height of the three-dimensional column. Kim teaches the fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 is a hexagonal column with a horizontal cross-section in the shape of a regular hexagon (Figure 4, and paragraphs [0021] and [0024] – [0025]). The combination of Kim and Lee does not explicitly teach the elastic protrusion is an elastic structure in which a plurality of rhomboid columns overlap, sharing upper and lower ends. Ebe teaches a porous structure having a cushioning property and includes a skeleton portion which can be compressed and restored upon the application and release of an external force (abstract, page 3, 3rd paragraph, and paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7). Ebe teaches the skeleton portion includes a polyhedron, such as a rhombic dodecahedron (elastic structure in which a plurality of rhomboid columns overlap, sharing upper and lower ends) (paragraph bridging pages 28 and 29). Ebe teaches when the shape of the skeleton portion is polyhedral, the gap between cell holes constituting the porous structure can be made smaller, and as a result more cell holes can be formed inside the porous structure, causing the behavior of the compression/restoration deformation of the porous structure in response to the application/release of the external force to be further improved as a cushioning material, particularly as a cushion material for sitting (paragraph bridging pages 27 and 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compression cells (elastic protrusion) from the combination of Kim and Lee with the porous structure of Ebe to: (1) improve the cushioning property of the cushion material; and/or (2) tailor the cushioning effect of the formed elastic structure by adjusting the number of cell holes present in the compression cells.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Kim illustrates the elastic structure comprising the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion formed by a plurality of ribs) 35a and a hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column) 35 are combined such that the structure allows for axial forces like compression and tension (Figure 4). Regarding the physical response of the elastic structure to outside forces, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the elastic protrusion and the three-dimensional column are combined such that the structure does not allow for the generation of moments, the claimed property/function is deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the combination of Kim, Lee and Ebe teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Lee, EP 0 795 310 A2 with a machine translation (concurrently filed) (hereinafter “Lohnes”), and Yang.Regarding claims 11 and 12 Kim teaches an elastic structure comprising fixed ribs (elastic protrusion comprising a plurality of ribs) 35a and a hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column in the form of a multi-sided column) 35 that accommodates the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion) 35a, where the inner surface of the hexagonal fixed cell (three-dimensional column in the form of a multi-sided column) 35 is connected to the side vertices of the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion) 35a (abstract; paragraphs [0016], [0024] and [0025]; and Figures 1-4). Kim teaches the invention relates to a seat for ergonomic seating which improves blood circulation and prevent a variety of skin diseases with excellent breathability (abstract and paragraph [0001]). Kim does not explicitly teach the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion) 35a is in the shape of a hexagonal pyramid with contraction-allowing grooves formed between edges. Lee teaches a mat comprising compression cells (elastic protrusion) 1200 comprising a plurality of ribs 1200A, 1200B, where the compression cells have vent holes and at least one vertex of the triangular shape being connected to an edge of the vent hole (three-dimensional column) in the mat 110 (abstract; paragraphs [0052] – [0054], [0064], [0075] – [0082]; and Figures 1 and 9-10). Lee teaches the compression cells, when compressed, offer an acupressure effect which increases comfort felt by the user, and aids in promoting blood circulation (abstract, and paragraphs [0006] and [0017] – [0019]). Lohnes teaches a mat having an acupressure effect elements comprising a pyramidal element with a hexagonal base (protrusion in the shape of a hexagonal pyramid) is well known (paragraph [0008]). Lee and Lohnes are analogous inventions in the field of acupressure mats. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the shapes of the compression cells of Lee with the hexagonal pyramid elements of Lohnes motivated by the desire to form a conventional acupressure element for a mat, comprising a hexagonal pyramid shape known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such an acupressure element. See MPEP §2144.06(II). Kim, Lee and Lohnes are analogous inventions in the field of compressive cushions which promote blood circulation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fixed ribs of Kim with the acupressure elements from Lee and Lohnes to increase the comfort of the cushion by providing an acupressure effect thereon. The combination of Kim, Lee and Lohnes does not explicitly teach: (i) contraction-allowing grooves formed between edges of the fixed ribs (elastic protrusion) 35a (as modified by Lee and Lohnes); (ii) an elastic structure with overlapping truss structures; and (iii) the plurality of ribs being combined with the same axis connecting upper and lower vertices, forming an elastic structure with overlapping truss structures. Yang teaches a cushion member comprising a shock absorbing space (contraction-allowing groove) 3 provided between ribs of a shock absorbing protrusion (elastic protrusion) 2 (between edges of the elastic protrusion), where the shock absorbing space 3 serves to help the shock absorbing protrusions 2 to perform the buffering action while being elastically compressed and expanded (Figures 2-5 and paragraphs [0005] – [0007]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of ribs from the combination of Kim, Lee and Lohnes with the shock absorbing space (contraction-allowing groove) 3 of Yang to improve the compression absorbing characteristics of the plurality of ribs. Yang also teaches the cushion member may be stacked on another cushion member, where the plurality of shock absorbing protrusions (elastic protrusion comprising the plurality of ribs) 2 is combined with the same axis connecting upper and lower vertices of the protrusions 2, and forming an elastic structure with overlapping truss structures (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the elastic structure from the combination of Kim, Lee, Lohnes, and Yang with the stacked cushion member configuration, as taught by Yang, to further improve the cushioning properties of the elastic structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights