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 .
Claims 166-185 are pending.
Claims 166-185 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement and
Requirement for Information under 37 CFR 1.105
In this application, the applicant has filed twelve (12) Information Disclosure Statements, containing approximately 400 US patent documents, and 402 foreign references. This application claims a seat support with layers of a plastic mesh. A partial review of the IDSs shows that many references are directed to chairs unrelated to any mesh structure, machines to make mesh, etc. Furthermore, many references appear to have no relevance to the claimed invention. Examples are as follows:
US 20130006763 A1 issued on Jan 2, 2013, not on March 21, 2013. Furthermore, it is not issued to “NIKE INC”, rather to Catalina Marketing Corporation for “INCENTIVE NETWORK FOR DISTRIBUTING INCENTIVES ON A NETWORK-WIDE BASIS AND FOR PERMITTING USER ACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES FROM A PLURALITY OF NETWORK SERVERS”
US 20160052066 A1 directed to an ULTRASONIC MICRON PRECISION MOLDING APPARATUS
US 20120235461 A1 STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PIVOTABLY SUPPORTING AN ARMREST ON A SEAT
US D1005380 Eyeglass Clip
US 20220370749 A1 ULTRASONIC WELDING OF FABRICS FOR SLEEP APNEA TREATMENT
US 20220169554 A1 CONVEYING OF GLASS SHEETS BY MEANS OF CURVED ROLLERS
US 20180332663 A1 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HEATING AND SENSING PROXIMITY TO VEHICLE COMPONENTS
US 9617021 B2 Apparatus For Bagging A Bale And Method Of Bagging Such Bale
For each document cited in the IDS entries (or any revised IDS filed in response to this Requirement for Information) that applicant still wants considered, the following factual information is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application and is required to be provided under 37 CFR 1.105. Applicant must provide the factual basis that caused each document in the IDS to be disclosed to the Office. This factual basis could include an explanation of how each document bears upon the claimed invention and/or citations to the pertinent portions of the documents, by column/page and line number, that caused the applicant to submit the document for consideration. Further, Applicant should also revise it to remove previously cited documents that have no relationship to the invention.
Applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. A statement that the item is "unknown or not readily available" is inapplicable in this situation because (1) the applicant is in possession of the information that was listed in the IDS, and (2) pursuant to applicant's duties under §§ 1.4 and 11.18, applicant should have made a reasonable inquiry into the documents before filing them with the Office for consideration by the examiner. Further, providing a blanket statement, such as, "the whole portion of the document caused it to be listed" for each document in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 24, 2015 would also not be acceptable. As explained above, a partial review of the documents cited reveals that many have no relevance to the instant application and, therefore, it cannot be said that the "whole portion" of these documents caused them to be listed.
A complete reply to the enclosed Office Action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office Action.
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)(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.
Claims 166-169, 171, and 181 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hettinga (US 5788332).
As concerns claim 166, Hettinga discloses a seat support comprising: a plurality of layers (Hettinga, shown in fig. 3) or regions of a plastic mesh (Hettinga, fig. 3: 24, 26, and 28), characterized in that the plurality of layers (Hettinga, shown in fig. 3) or regions is stacked upon each other, attached to each other, or positioned at a nonzero angle (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) relative to each other.
As concerns claim 167, Hettinga discloses a member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18) comprising a stranded mesh material (Hettinga, column 3, lines 43-44, 49-50, and 57-59) as the plastic mesh (Hettinga, fig. 3: 24, 26, and 28), the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18) defining a first end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) and a second end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2), the first and second end regions (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) bounded by an outer perimeter of the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18); and wherein the first end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) is positioned at a nonzero angle (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) relative to the second end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2).
As concerns claim 168, Hettinga discloses wherein the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18) is formed solely from the stranded mesh material (Hettinga, column 3, lines 43-44, 49-50, and 57-59).
As concerns claim 169, Hettinga discloses wherein the stranded mesh material (Hettinga, column 3, lines 43-44, 49-50, and 57-59) comprises a polymeric mesh (Hettinga, column 3, lines 43-44, 49-50, and 57-59) having a plurality of integrated polymeric strands (Hettinga, column 3, lines 43-44, 49-50, and 57-59).
As concerns claim 171, Hettinga discloses the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18) further comprises a first surface (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) to support an occupant on the seat support and a second surface (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) opposite to the first surface (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2), the first surface (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) extending across the first and second end regions (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2), the second surface (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) extending across the first and second end regions (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2).
As concerns claim 181, Hettinga discloses a plurality of flat layers (Hettinga, shown in fig. 3) to mount to a seat frame (Hettinga, column 1, lines 21-24) and to support an occupant upon the seat frame (Hettinga, column 1, lines 21-24), wherein the plurality of flat layers (Hettinga, shown in fig. 3) is stacked upon one another, and each of the plurality of stacked layers (Hettinga, shown in fig. 3) has a varying density (Hettinga, column 3, lines 42-60).
Claims 166-167 and 176-178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueno (US 20040142619).
As concerns claim 166, Ueno discloses a seat support comprising: a plurality of layers (Ueno, fig. 1: 11 and 12) or regions of a plastic mesh (Ueno, fig. 11: 110), characterized in that the plurality of layers (Ueno, fig. 1: 11 and 12) or regions is stacked upon each other, attached to each other, or positioned at a nonzero angle relative to each other.
As concerns claim 167, Ueno discloses a member (Ueno, fig. 11: 100) comprising a stranded mesh material (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4) as the plastic mesh (Ueno, fig. 11: 110), the stranded mesh material member (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4) defining a first end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2) and a second end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2), the first and second end regions (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2) bounded by an outer perimeter of the stranded mesh material member (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4); and wherein the first end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2) is positioned at a nonzero angle relative to the second end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2).
As concerns claim 176, Ueno discloses a secondary member (Ueno, fig. 2: 23) supported by the stranded mesh material member (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4).
As concerns claim 177, Ueno discloses wherein the secondary member (Ueno, fig. 2: 23) comprises a stranded mesh material (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4).
As concerns claim 178, Ueno discloses wherein the secondary member (Ueno, fig. 2: 23) extends outwardly from at least one of the first end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2) and the second end region (Ueno, see annotated fig. 2) of the stranded mesh material member (Ueno, paragraph 0069, line 4).
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.
Claims 170, 172-174 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettinga (US 5788332) in view of Sieber (US 11485264).
As concerns claim 170, Hettinga is discussed above, however, Hettinga does not teach a seat back cushion and a seat base cushion.
Sieber teaches the first end region (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) is shaped to define a seat back cushion (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6); and wherein the second end region (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) is shaped to define a seat base cushion (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the teachings of Hettinga to include the end regions define a seat back cushion and a seat base cushion as taught by Sieber in order for the user to be more comfortable.
As concerns claim 172, Hettinga teaches the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18).
However, Hettinga does not teach the stranded mesh material member has one or more channels.
Sieber teaches one or more channels (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6), each channel (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) intersecting one of the first surface (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) and the second surface (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the stranded mesh material member as taught by Hettinga to include channels as taught by Sieber in order for the mesh material to be flexible for the user’s comfort.
As concerns claim 173, Hettinga teaches the stranded mesh material member (Hettinga, fig. 3: 14, 16, and 18) and is positioned between the first end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2) and the second end region (Hettinga, see annotated fig. 2).
However, Hettinga does not teach one or more channels extends transversely across the stranded mesh material member.
Sieber teaches one or more channels (see annotated fig. 6) that extends over a member.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the stranded mesh material member as taught by Hettinga to include the channels as taught by Sieber in order for the mesh material to be flexible for the user’s comfort.
As concerns claim 174, Hettinga is discussed above and does not teach the channels.
Sieber teaches the channel (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) comprises a first face (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) and a second face (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6), wherein the first and second faces (Sieber, see annotated fig. 6) are mated with one another.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the stranded mesh material member as taught by Hettinga to include the channels as taught by Sieber in order for the mesh material to be flexible for the user’s comfort.
Claim(s) 180 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 20040142619) alone.
As concerns claim 180, Ueno further teaches that the arrangement and configuration of these mesh members can be selected to optimize support and comfort in targeted regions of the seat (see [0056], [0057], [0062]), and that the mesh layers may be positioned to provide increased stiffness or cushioning at specific locations as needed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to shape and position a secondary mesh member (as taught by Ueno) on the main stranded mesh member to form a side bolster or a lumbar pad, since providing targeted support in the form of bolsters or lumbar pads is a well-known and conventional seat design feature, and Ueno explicitly teaches flexible placement and shaping of mesh members for support at various seat regions.
Claims 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettinga (US 5788332) in view of Kitamoto (US 20170043695).
Hattinga is discussed above but does not show a first and second bolster assembly and components.
As concerns claim 182, Kitamoto teaches a first bolster assembly (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 108) including a first core cushion section (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 40) surrounded by a first outer bolster covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 120) which is surrounded by a first bolster trim covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 112); a second bolster assembly (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 108) including a second core cushion section (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 40) surrounded by a second outer bolster covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 120); and a trim covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 112) section having a first edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23) and a second edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), the first bolster assembly (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 108) being sewn (Kitamoto, shown in fig. 26) to the trim covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 112) section at the first edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23) and the second bolster assembly (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 108) sewn (Kitamoto, shown in fig. 26) to the trim covering (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 112) section at the second edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to provide the seat support of Hettinga on a seat with bolsters and trim cover as taught by Kitamoto.
Furthermore, Kitamoto appears to show the bolster assemblies being sewn to the trim covering, as shown by Fig. 26 (see below). While the reference is silent on this connection, it would have been obvious to sew the sections together to provide an old and well known connection that is easy to assemble.
As concerns claim 183, Kitamoto teaches comprising a plastic mesh base (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 11), the plastic mesh base (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 11) comprising a plurality of three-dimensional filament loops (Kitamoto, paragraph 0097, lines 4-6), the three- dimensional filament loops (Kitamoto, paragraph 0097, lines 4-6) composed of a thermoplastic polymer (Kitamoto, paragraph 0097, lines 5-7), the plastic mesh base (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 11) having a first edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), a second edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), a first face (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), and a second face (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), a first foamed bolster (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 41) attached to the plastic mesh base (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 11) at the first edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23), and a second foamed bolster (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 41) attached to the plastic mesh base (Kitamoto, fig. 23: 11) at the second edge (Kitamoto, see annotated fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the teaching of Hettinga to include the teachings of Kitamoto in order improve comfort for the user.
As concerns claim 184, Kitamoto teaches comprising at least one fabric (Kitamoto, fig. 1: 112) sized to be displaced across a surface of a cushion (Kitamoto, fig. 1: 100a), and at least one retainer (Kitamoto, fig. 26: 114) coupled to the at least one fabric (Kitamoto, fig. 1: 112), along a perimeter of the fabric, to receive a trim component, an actuator, a heat transfer layer, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the teaching of Hettinga to include the teachings of Kitamoto in order to improve comfort for the user.
As concerns claim 185, Hettinga teaches the seat support (Hettinga, fig. 1: 10).
However, Hettinga does not teach a seat bottom and a seat back.
Kitamoto teaches a seat bottom (Kitamoto, fig. 1: 100a) and a seat back (Kitamoto, fig. 38: 200a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to include the seat support as taught by Hettinga in the seat bottom and seat back as taught by Kitamoto in order for the best comfort for the user.
PNG
media_image1.png
870
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
866
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
822
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
772
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 175 and 179 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA K THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, 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.
JESSICA K THOMPSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights