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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed January 17, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed January 17, 2025 are approved.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 15-26 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 1 recites the limitation "the reaction plate" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “one edge” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to represent the claim structure as the previously set forth “upper edge”. See claim 6, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the plurality of functions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a seatback frame” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to represent the same structure as the previously set forth “a frame of a seatback”. See claim 1 from which claim 25 depends.
The remaining claims are indefinite as each depends from an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 does not further limit claim 6, from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 15, 16, 22, 25 and 26, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colja et al (US8162398).
Note a support system for a seat, the system comprising: a suspension (48) coupled to the a frame (28) of a seatback; a plurality of pneumatic cells (52) coupled to the suspension, each pneumatic cell expandable and independently controllable (see line 11 of the abstract) to expand (see Figure 11) between a first position and a second position; and a flexible reaction surface (196) covering a forward surface of the plurality of pneumatic cells, wherein the reaction plate maintains a smooth transition surface (see Figures 12D-12E) between each of the pneumatic cells when each of the plurality of pneumatic cells is expanded to the first and second positions.
Regarding claim 2, note the reaction surface maintains the smooth transition surface being a convex contour between each of the pneumatic cells. See Figures 12D-12E.
Regarding claim 3, note the reaction surface maintains the smooth transition surface from an apex defined by at least one of the pneumatic cells and another of the pneumatic cells. See Figures 12D-12E.
Regarding claim 5, note the reaction surface comprises a comfort layer of the seatback wherein the comfort layer comprises at least one of a firm foam (“foam pad”, as described in line 7 of col. 7, which necessarily has some degree of firmness), flex-air, a soft foam reinforced with felt, a dual-hardness foam or a gradient-hardness foam.
Regarding claim 9, note the plurality of pneumatic cells are spaced apart in a lateral direction and a vertical an upright direction. See Figure 3.
Regarding claim 15, note the plurality of pneumatic cells comprises at least two lateral rows of pneumatic cells extending in the lateral direction and spaced apart in the upright direction and the plurality of pneumatic cells comprises at least two upright rows of pneumatic cells extending in an upright direction and spaced apart in a lateral direction. See Figure 14.
Regarding claim 16, note a valve bank (116) in communication with the plurality of pneumatic cells; a controller (124) in communication with the valve bank and programed (see lines 1-7 in column 6) to: command a first portion of the pneumatic cells to expand; command a second portion of the pneumatic cells to expand to a depth less than the first portion (see lines 44-60 in column 6), wherein the flexible reaction surface maintains the smooth transition surface between the first portion and the second portion (see Figures 12D-12E).
Regarding claim 22, note the controller is configured to command the first and second portions of pneumatic cells to perform a plurality of functions. See lines 61-67 in column 6, and lines 1-3 in column 7.
Regarding claim 25, note vehicle seat comprising: a seatback with a seatback frame; and the support system of claim 1 mounted to the seatback frame. See Figures 1-2.
Regarding claim 26, note the plurality of pneumatic cells are positioned in a lumbar region of the seatback. See line 1 of the abstract.
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) 6-8, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colja et al (US8162398) in view of CN112896002A.
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the reaction plate only coupled to the suspension adjacent an upper edge (claim 6);
wherein the reaction plate is only coupled to the suspension adjacent the upper edge and a lower edge is free (claim 7); wherein the reaction plate is only coupled to the suspension adjacent one edge and an opposite edge is free and not coupled to the suspension (claim 8).
In the primary reference, note the reaction surface is a reaction plate.
The secondary reference teaches configuring a support system with a reaction plate (2a) as only coupled to a suspension adjacent an upper edge (see Figure 2);
wherein the reaction plate that is only coupled to the suspension adjacent the upper edge and a lower edge is free (see Figure 2); wherein the reaction plate is only coupled to the suspension adjacent one edge (upper) and an opposite edge (lower) is free and not coupled to the suspension (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by configuring the reaction plate as only coupled to the suspension adjacent an upper edge (regarding claim 6); wherein the reaction plate is only coupled to the suspension adjacent the upper edge and a lower edge is free (regarding claim 7); wherein the reaction plate is only coupled to the suspension adjacent one edge and an opposite edge is free and not coupled to the suspension (regarding claim 8). This modification provides an alternate, equivalent configuration for the reaction plate in reference to the suspension, wherein either configuration performs equally as well as the other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21, 23 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Long et al (US6098000) shows a programmable controller for bladders in a vehicle seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/June 18, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights