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
Newly submitted claim 14 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: it is directed to a restrictable combination of the previously examined subcombination.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0129920) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US Patent Number 7152920).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a pneumatic vehicle seat comprising: a plurality of main air cells (center members 22 and/or 48; see Figure 1) mounted above a seat cushion frame (lower portions/rails of 32 and/or member 56 for instance); at least one bolster air cell (side members 22; see again Figure 1) mounted above either lateral end of the seat cushion frame (this is the general arrangement); a seat cushion pad laminated over the plurality of main air cells and the at least one bolster air cell (see paragraph 17 describing foam and/or underlayment); a seat cover covering the seat cushion pad (see again paragraph 17 describing upholstery); an air pump configured to selectively supply air to at least one of the plurality of main air cells or the at least one bolster air cell (see at least paragraph 18 describing this arrangement), and the arrangement capable of drawing air from the cells (see again at least paragraph 18); and an air cell controller configured to control the the air pump to individually adjust a degree of inflation of the plurality of main air cells and the at least one bolster air cell, thereby adjusting at least one of a height and a contour of a localized area of the seat cushion pad (see at least paragraph 18 describing controls for inflating and deflating the cells as well as associated processors/computer systems for controlling the operation, and further see at least paragraph 17 describing the cells as “independently moveable between an inflated state and a deflated state to allow for customization of the contour of [the] cushion”). Hall may not clearly disclose the pump configured to draw air from the cells. Sugiyama discloses a related device including a pump (12a) configured to selectively supply air to and draw air from at least one air cell (11; see the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a pump as taught by Sugiyama in Hall’s device because this could improve user comfort, support, and/or safety. Further, while the combination as provided would be viewed as meeting the limitations claim limitations as set forth, if the controller of the pump was not clear, Sugiyama further discloses a controller for directing a pump to supply or draw air to cells (see the paragraph noted above). Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a controller as taught by Sugiyama in Hall’s device because this could ensure proper operation to improve user comfort, support, and/or safety.
Regarding claim 2, Hall, modified as described, further discloses a switch operated to regulate a volume of inflation of the plurality of main air cells and the at least one bolster air cell; wherein the air cell controller is configured to operate the air pump to upon receiving a signal from the switch (this would be the general manner of operation of the combination; see again at least paragraph 18 of Hall, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Hall, modified as described, further appears to disclose the air pump and the air cell controller are mounted on an undersurface of the seat cushion frame (this would appear to be the case based on the figures of the reference devices); however, this may not be explicit. Rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components positioned as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, convenience, and/or safety.
Regarding claim 4, Hall, modified as described, further discloses a main hose is connected between an outlet port of the air pump and an inlet port of the air cell controller, and a plurality of distribution hoses are connected to an outlet port of the air cell controller, the plurality of main air cells and the at least one bolster air cell (this would necessarily be the case based on the description of tubes in paragraph 18 for instance). Note that even in the case that this arrangement were not clear, rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to ensure proper operation and improve user comfort and/or convenience.
Regarding claim 5, Hall, modified as described, further discloses the plurality of main air cells comprises: a front horizontal air cell arranged in a horizontal direction at a front side of the seat cushion frame; a middle horizontal air cell arranged in the horizontal direction at a middle side of the seat cushion frame; and a rear horizontal air cell arranged in the horizontal direction at a rear side of the seat cushion frame (the cells at 48 would be viewed as meeting these limitations). Note that even in the case that this more upright arrangement were not clearly aligned front-to-rear, Hall further discloses at least two such cells in the seat bottom (see Figure 1). As duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and/or safety.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Hall, modified as described, further discloses the seat cushion pad is provided on an undersurface thereof with an upwardly recessed accommodating space where the plurality of main air cells and the at least one bolster air cell are placed (this is the general arrangement; see Figure 1) and further comprising a support bar (70) attached to a front end and both lateral ends of an undersurface of the seat cushion pad (at least indirectly). While Hall is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations as claimed, the particular shapes and connections may not be explicitly described. However, as changes in shape and arrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, even if the shapes and connections were not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components shaped and arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and/or safety.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Sugiyama and further in view of Onuma et al. (US Patent Number 10220756). Hall, modified as explained, discloses a seat as described above including the at least one bolster air cell is arranged along a longitudinal direction above the lateral side of the seat cushion frame (see figures) but may not disclose upper and lower cells. Onuma discloses a related device including a plurality of air cells having a structure having a first upper air cell (28) and a second lower air cell (26) stacked on one another in a fluid-communicating manner (this is the general arrangement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide cells as taught by Onuma in Hall’s device as previously modified because this could improve user comfort, support, and/or safety.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Sugiyama and further in view Bortolon et al. (US Patent Number 10045623). Note that while independent, claim 13 is equivalent to previous claim 11 (see the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above for treatment of these limitations). Hall, modified as explained, discloses a seat as described above including a support groove in the cushion pad (see at least Figure 7 showing a groove in the pad), but does not disclose details of the support bar or groove shape. Bortolon discloses a related device including a support bar comprising: a front horizontal bar (front portion of 18) attached to the undersurface of a seat cushion pad (15) at the front end (at the very least indirectly), extending along a horizontal direction; a pair of lateral longitudinal bars (side portions of 18) attached to the undersurface of the seat cushion pad at the both lateral ends (at least indirectly much as the front), extending rearwardly from both lateral ends of the front horizontal bar along a longitudinal direction; and a pair of hinge parts (at 83B) integrally formed at rear ends of the pair of lateral longitudinal bars and configured to be hinge-connected to a seat cushion frame (at 16), wherein the pair of lateral longitudinal bars is provided on an undersurface thereof with a guide bar (80) at a predetermined position, and the seat cushion frame is provided with a guide hole (at 81A, 81B) through which the guide bar passes, such that the guide bar is configured to guide an up and down movement of the support bar (this is the general arrangement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a support bar as taught by Bortolon in Hall’s device as previously modified because this could improve user comfort, support, and/or safety. Further, as changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the support groove shaped and arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and/or safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Hall does not disclose modification of a height or contour of a seat cushion, appears to argue that Hall fails to disclose inflation and deflation via the pump and/or that Sugiyama is insufficient for this purpose, that Onuma discloses a plurality of cells different than those of the invention and/or as claimed, and that Bortolon discloses a support plate rather than a support bar.
Regarding Hall’s inflation operation, while it is acknowledged that it is described for uses including feedback, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Hall explicitly describes seat cushion contour modification by inflation/deflation in paragraph 17 as noted above.
Regarding Hall’s deflation, it is acknowledged that Hall may not disclose air drawn from the cells via the pump. This feature is taught by Sugiyama and explained in the rejection above. Note that Applicant’s arguments as to the purposes of Sugiyama’s operation are not relevant to the rejection as Sugiyama is cited simply for the teaching of a pump for selectively supplying and drawing air from a cell. Hall provides the contour adjustment as explained above.
Regarding the cells disclosed by Onuma, Applicant seems to argue that the invention provides stacked cells that are individually controlled, while the cells of Onuma must be considered a single cell because they inflate together. However, it is noted that the relevant claim recites cells “stacked… in a fluid-communicating manner.” It is not clear how such an arrangement could exist other than much as in Onuma; i.e. two cells stack one on another and providing fluid communication therebetween. Conversely, individually controlled cells would seem to be necessarily be fluid non-communicative, which is the opposite of the current claim language.
Regarding Bortolon, it is initially noted that only particular portions of element 18 are referred to in the rejection. Nevertheless, element 18 of Bortolon is considered a support bar as much as it could be considered a support plate based on its general shape and dimensions. Applicant has not specifically defined a bar versus a plate nor has Applicant clearly indicated how Bortolon lacks any relevant features as currently recited. That Applicant’s bar may provide specific function in the invention does not impact the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights