June 24, 2026
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 .
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numa et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,942,300 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
231
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Numa et al. teach a seat assembly comprising:
a lower support platform 3 having a first peripheral edge, an upper surface and a lower surface;
a support ring 16 surrounding the first peripheral edge of the lower support platform and extending radially outwardly therefrom, wherein the support ring defines a second peripheral edge and comprises an upper surface;
an upper shell 1 disposed over the upper surfaces of the lower support platform and the support ring and defining a concave cavity, wherein the upper shell has a third peripheral edge defining a central opening and an upper surface; and
a suspension material 2 secured to the upper shell across the central opening and covering the concave cavity.
As for claim 2, Numa et al. teach that the suspension material 2 is coupled to the third peripheral edge of the upper shell.
As for claim 3, Numa et al. teach that the upper shell comprises a groove 9 or 18 extending around at least a portion of the third peripheral edge, wherein a peripheral edge of the suspension material 2 is disposed in the groove 9 or 18.
As for claim 4, Numa et al. further comprises at least one stay 13 or 18 coupled to the peripheral edge of the suspension material 2, wherein the at least one stay is disposed in the groove 9 or 18.
As for claim 10, Numa et al. teach that the lower support platform has a generally trapezoidal shape with a rear edge being shorter than a front edge and a pair of side edges joining the front and rear edges (see Figures 4-5).
As for claim 11, Numa et al. teach that the support ring has a central opening defined by an interior peripheral edge surrounding and coupled to the rear edge, front edge and side edges of the lower support platform.
As for claim 17, Numa et al. teach that the upper surface of the support platform has a concave shape.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numa et al (U.S. 6,942,300 B2) in view of Coffield et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,406,733 B2).
Numa et al teach the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach a cushion disposed between the upper surface of the upper shell and a bottom surface of the suspension material.
PNG
media_image3.png
128
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Coffield et al. teach the concept of including a cushion 14 disposed between the upper surface of an upper shell and a bottom surface of a suspension material 12; an upper surface of the cushion is spaced apart from the bottom surface of the suspension material.. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat assembly, as taught by Nuna et al. to include a cushion disposed between the upper surface of an upper shell and a bottom surface of a suspension material, as taught by Coffield et al., since it would increase the comfort of the seat by adding the cushion under the suspension material and pride a softer, more comfortable seating surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 12-16 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.
Claims 80-82 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a flexible edge member coupled to the second peripheral edge of the support ring, as defined in claims 5 and 80, the support ring comprising an inner ring having a trapezoidal shape and defining the interior peripheral edge, and an outer ring, wherein the inner and outer rings are joined by at least two connectors, as defined in claim 12, and the support platform comprising a pair of laterally spaced pads positioned at a forward portion of the support platform, each of the pads comprising at least one first mounting component, as defined in claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. Dunn can be reached on (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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights