DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application 18/889,605 filed 9/19/2024 which claims benefit of 63/590,169 10/13/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections dated 3/5/2026 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims dated 6/8/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
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.
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, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brncick (US 2010/0207443 A1)(hereinafter Brncick) in view of Yadav (US 9802512 B1)(hereinafter Yadav).
RE Claim 1: Brncick discloses a connector (34; Fig 18, 20) comprising:
a flange (200) sized to be located between a first sheet and a second sheet of polymeric material (Fig 20);
a tube (passageway 203; see Fig 18 and paras 0076) extending from a hole in the flange; and
one or more protrusions (approximately 201) extending from a side of the flange (200) opposite the tube and partially surrounding the hole in the flange to separate the flange from the second sheet (Figs 18, 20).
Brncick does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange.
However, Yadav teaches a connector (analogous art) comprising protrusions (52; Figs 5B) and further teaches the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange (Fig 5B).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Yadav such that the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange as taught by Yadav for the advantages of secure attachment and to help facilitate alignment of components.
RE Claim 23: Brncick discloses the connector of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses the flange has a first surface and a second surface facing opposite the first surface; the tube extends outward from the first surface of the flange (Figs 18-20); and
Yadav further discloses the one or more protrusions (52) extend from the second surface of the flange and are spaced apart from an edge of the hole along the second surface (Fig 5B).
RE Claim 24: Brncick discloses the connector of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Yadav discloses wherein the one or more protrusions (52) comprise a plurality of discrete protrusions that are spaced apart from each other around the hole (Fig 5B).
RE Claim 4: Brncick discloses an apparatus (vehicle seat cushion with inflatable bladder per title) comprising:
first and second sheets of polymeric material joined together to form one or more fluid flow channels (para 0059; Figs 12-16); and
at least one connector (434M, L, U)(34 in Fig 18, 20), each connector comprising:
a flange (best seen in Fig 13 and 18, flange 200 per para 0076) located between the first sheet and the second sheet within one of the fluid flow channels (best seen in Fig 18, 20), wherein the flange has a first surface and a second surface facing opposite the first surface (Figs 18, 20),
a tube (passageway 203; see Fig 18 and paras 0076) extending from a hole in the surface of the flange through a hole in the first sheet (Fig 18, 20), and
one or more protrusions (approximately 201) extending from the second surface of the flange (200) partially surrounding the hole in the flange and separating the flange from the second sheet (Figs 18, 20).
Brncick does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protrusions are spaced apart from an edge of the hole along the second surface.
However, Yadav teaches a connector (analogous art) comprising protrusions (52; Figs 5B) and further teaches wherein the one or more protrusions are spaced apart from an edge of the hole along the second surface (Fig 5B).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Yadav such that the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange as taught by Yadav for the advantages of secure attachment and to help facilitate alignment of components.
RE Claim 5: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses wherein the first and second sheets are made of thermoplastic urethane (para 0059).
RE Claim 6: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 5 as previously discussed.
Brncick further comprising at least one massage bladder (418L, M, U per para 0058) fluidly connected to at least one flow channel of the one or more fluid flow channels (Figs 12-16; paras 0058-0059), and wherein the at least one connector is associated with the at least one flow channel to inject air into each flow channel at a right angle (compare Fig 20 with Applicant’s Fig 4).
RE Claim 7: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 6 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses comprising a seat cushion (approximated by 412) adjacent to the at least one massage bladder (418L, M, U; Figs 12-16) to impart a massage effect from a fluid through the at least one connector, the at least one flow channel, and the at least one massage bladder (para 0058-0059).
RE Claim 10: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses wherein the first surface of the flange is joined to the first sheet (Fig 20).
RE Claim 11: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Yadav further discloses wherein the one or more protrusions comprise a plurality of protrusions that are spaced apart from each other around the hole (Fig 5B).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Yadav such that the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange as taught by Yadav for the advantages of secure attachment and to help facilitate alignment of components.
RE Claim 12: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses further comprising a fluid pump (426) fluidly connected to the tube (203).
RE Claim 14: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses wherein the at least one connector comprises a plurality of connectors (434L, M, U).
RE Claim 15: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 14 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses wherein the first and second sheets are joined to form a plurality of flow channels, each surrounding one connector (para 0059; Figs 12-16).
RE Claim 16: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 14 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses further comprising a plurality of massage bladders (418L, M, U per para 0058), each massage bladder fluidly connected to one of the one or more fluid flow channels (para 0059; Figs 12-16).
RE Claim 17: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as previously discussed.
Brncick further discloses further comprising a fluid pump (426) fluidly connected to the tubes of the plurality of connectors (passageway 203 of each 434).
RE Claim 19: Brncick discloses a vehicle seat (vehicle seat cushion with inflatable bladder per title) comprising:
a cushion (cushion approximated by 412);
a plurality of massage bladders (418L, M, U per para 0058) adjacent to the cushion (Figs 12-16);
first and second sheets of thermo-plastic urethane joined together to form a plurality of fluid flow channels (para 0059; Figs 12-16), each fluid flow channel fluidly connected to one of the plurality of massage bladders (para 0059); and
a plurality of connectors (434L, M, U), each connector comprising:
a flange (best seen in Fig 13 and 18, flange 200 per para 0076) located between the first sheet and the second sheet within one of the fluid flow channels (best seen in Fig 18, 20), wherein the flange has a first surface and second surface facing opposite the first surface (Figs 18, 20),
a tube (passageway 203; see Fig 18 and paras 0076) extending from a hole in the first surface of the flange through a hole in the first sheet (Fig 18, 20), and
one or more protrusions (approximately 201) extending from the second surface of the flange (200) partially surrounding the hole in the flange and separating the flange from the second sheet (Figs 18, 20).
Brncick does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more protrusions are spaced apart from an edge of the hole along the second surface.
However, Yadav teaches a connector (analogous art) comprising protrusions (52; Figs 5B) and further teaches wherein the one or more protrusions are spaced apart from an edge of the hole along the second surface (Fig 5B).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Yadav such that the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange as taught by Yadav for the advantages of secure attachment and to help facilitate alignment of components.
RE Claim 21: Brncick as modified discloses the vehicle seat of claim 19 as previously discussed.
Yadav further discloses wherein the one or more protrusions (52) comprise a plurality of discrete protrusions that are spaced apart from each other around the hole (Fig 5B).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Yadav such that the one or more protrusions only partially surround the hole in the flange as taught by Yadav for the advantages of secure attachment and to help facilitate alignment of components.
RE Claim 22: Brncick (as modified) discloses the vehicle seat of claim 19 as previously discussed.
wherein each connector is associated with one flow channel to inject air into each flow channel at a right angle (compare Fig 20 with Applicant’s Fig 4).
Claims 2-3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brncick in view of Yadav as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan (US 2003/0038517 A1)(hereinafter Morgan).
RE Claim 2: Brncick (as modified) discloses the connector of claim 1.
Brncick (as modified) does not explicitly teach wherein the connector is made of a polymeric material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Brncick (as modified) such that the connector is made of a polymeric material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to use plastic for durability.
Furthermore, Morgan teaches a seat with air cells (analogous art). Morgan further teaches connectors made of polymeric material (para 0064).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick (as modified) in view of Morgan such that the connector is made of a polymeric material for as taught by Morgan for the advantages of durability (“high strength” per para 0064).
RE Claim 3: Brncick as modified discloses the connector of claim 2.
Morgan teaches plastic material for the connector (see claim 2). Brncick teaches use of thermos-plastic urethane (para 0059) as a specific type of plastic material for use in the system.
RE Claim 8: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Brncick (as modified) does not explicitly teach wherein the connector is made of a polymeric material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Brncick (as modified) such that the connector is made of a polymeric material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to use plastic for durability.
Furthermore, Morgan teaches a seat with air cells (analogous art). Morgan further teaches connectors made of polymeric material (para 0064).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick (as modified) in view of Morgan such that the at least one connector is made of a polymeric material for as taught by Morgan for the advantages of durability (“high strength” per para 0064).
Morgan teaches plastic material for the at least one connectors. Brncick teaches use of thermos-plastic urethane (para 0059) as a specific type of plastic material for use in the system.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brncick in view of Yadav as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorfler et al. (US 2003/0230917 A1)(hereinafter Dorfler).
RE Claim 9: Brncick (as modified) discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Brncick (as modified) does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second sheets are joined around the at least one connector using welding.
However, Dorfler teaches a seat with a fluid line (abstract) and valve and sheeting (analogous art). Dorfler further teaches wherein the first and second sheets are joined around the at least one connector using welding (para 0011).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick (as modified) in view of Dorfler such that wherein the first and second sheets are joined around the at least one connector using welding as taught by Dorfler for the advantages of secure attachment (para 0011).
RE product-by-process claims, please see MPEP 2113 (1) which states: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claims 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brncick in view of Yadav as applied to claims 12, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 6203105 B1)(hereinafter Rhodes).
RE Claims 13, 18, 20: Brncick discloses the apparatus of claim 12, 17, and 19 and further wherein the fluid pump (246) is selectively fluidly connected (via controller 424) to the tube (203). It appears based on paras 0058-0059 that the fluid pump is selectively fluidly connected to the tube via a valve.
Note in Brncick each connector (with the tube) acts as a valve. Where it is contemplated Brncick does not explicitly teach the fluid pump selectively fluidly connected to the tube via a valve
However, Rhodes teaches a vehicle seat cushion with bladders 10, fluid flow (col 5, ln 48-55), a pump 12, and a controller 15, 16 (analogous art).
Rhodes further teaches the fluid pump (12) selectively fluidly connected (via 15, 16) to the tube via a valve (col 5, ln 48-55, col 6, ln 1-10 and 20-25 and Fig 3).
Therefore, 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 device of Brncick in view of Rhodes such that the fluid pump selectively fluidly connected to the tube via a valve as taught by Rhodes for the advantages of control of fluid flow (para 0058 of Brncick).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various cushion systems with bladders, nozzles, valves, pumps, etc.
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 MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights