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 1-7 in the reply filed on 4 February 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07-189105 A with a machine translation (concurrently submitted) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Isoda”).Regarding claims 1 and 2 Isoda teaches a netlike structure (net structure) having different densities suitable for a cushioning material having excellent heat resistance, durability, and cushioning properties (abstract). Isoda teaches the netlike structure comprises a continuous linear body made of thermoplastic elastic resin (thermoplastic elastomer continuous filaments) that is twisted to form a large number of loops, and each loop is brought into contact (junction structure) with each other in a molten state, and most of the contact points are fused, which results in a three-dimensional random loop structure (paragraph [0008]). Isoda teaches the netlike structure may be used as a cushioning layer comprising a plurality of layers including: a basic/base layer (first layer having a first compressive hardness) having a larger filament fineness that increases hardness, and being responsible for vibration absorption and body shape retention; and a surface layer that is a slightly softer layer (second layer having a relatively lower second compressive hardness) having a smaller filament fineness that provides comfort to a user by permitting moderate sinking and uniformly disperses pressure applied by the user (paragraph [0012]), which corresponds to the net structure includes portions differing in terms of compressive hardness zonally. Isoda does not explicitly teach the different layers (portions) differ in terms of compressive hardness by 5% or more zonally. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a compressive hardness for each of the basic/base layer and the surface layer, and the difference therebetween, using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired vibration absorption and body shape retention of the basic/base layer, and comfort by permitting moderate sinking and uniform dispersion of pressure distributed by the user of the surface layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). In addition, Isoda teaches the optimum combination of the fineness and density of each layer can be arbitrarily selected in consideration of the apparent density (of the entire netlike structure) (paragraph [0012]). Isoda teaches since the network structure has at least two or more types of layers made of filaments having different finenesses, the apparent density of each layer is changed to give favorable characteristics (paragraph [0014]). Isoda also teaches it is possible to increase the (apparent) density by partially reducing the fineness of the filaments. Thus, each layer which consists of a filament with different fineness can arbitrarily select a preferable density and fineness according to the objective (Id). Isoda does not explicitly teach a difference in apparent density between each layer (the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness) being 0.005 or 0.003 g/cm3 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate apparent density for each of the surface layer and the base layer (the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness), and the difference therebetween, using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired vibration absorption and body shape retention of the basic/base layer, and comfort by permitting moderate sinking and uniform dispersion of pressure distributed by the user of the surface layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 3 In addition, Isoda teaches the thermoplastic elastic resin (thermoplastic elastomer) is a polyester-based thermoplastic elastomer (paragraph [0009]).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Isoda teaches the formation of the fused contact points results in a three-dimensional random loop structure that retains its shape (paragraph [0008]). Isoda teaches, with regards to the surface layer, contact points of the filaments on the surface of the netlike structure are greatly increased to form adhesion points (junction points) so local external forces that are received by the surface structure is deformed as a whole, and the entire internal structure can be restored to its original form when the stress is released (paragraph [0015]). Isoda does not explicitly teach the number of adhesion points (junction points (pieces/g)) differs by 7% or more between the surface layer and the base layer (the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate number of adhesion points (junction points (pieces/g)) for each of the surface layer and the base layer (the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness), and the difference therebetween, using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired: (1) three-dimensional random loop structure that retains its shape; and (2) deformation of the surface layer which deforms as a whole to permit the entire internal structure to be restored to its original form when the stress is released. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Isoda teaches the basic/base layer has a larger filament fineness (having a first diameter) that increases hardness, and being responsible for vibration absorption and body shape retention; and the surface layer is a slightly softer layer having a smaller filament fineness (having a slightly smaller second diameter) that provides comfort to a user by permitting moderate sinking and uniformly disperses pressure applied by the user (paragraph [0012]), where the surface layer and the base layer corresponds to the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness. Isoda does not explicitly teach the surface layer and the base layer (portions differing in terms of compressive hardness) have a difference in fiber diameter of 10% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate fineness (diameter) of the filaments for each of the basic/base layer and the surface layer, and the difference therebetween, using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired vibration absorption and body shape retention of the basic/base layer, and comfort by permitting moderate sinking and uniform dispersion of pressure distributed by the user of the surface layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claims 6 and 7 Regarding the endothermic peak top temperature between the surface layer and the base layer (the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness of the net structure), although the prior art does not explicitly disclose wherein in a melting curve measured with a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), an endothermic peak top temperature appearing at a melting point or lower differs by 1 (or 2)°C or more between the portions differing in terms of compressive hardness of the net structure, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Isoda reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.
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