DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/081,102 filed 03/17/2025 which claims priority to CHINA 202410306015.4 03/18/2024.
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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is drafted without a clear transition from preamble to claim body. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this claim as though “comprising” in line 1 is ending the preamble and the limitation following “an air cushion body” in line 1 is beginning the claim body. It should further be noted that in Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., the Federal Circuit Court determined that: (a) in claims that do not have a transition phrase formally denoting a preamble, terms interpreted by the Examiner as being part of the preamble are not substantive limitations of the claims and should not be afforded patentable weight despite the lack of any transition phrases, and (b) Applicants should avoid such “poor claim drafting” by including a transition word to clearly delineate between the preamble and the body. Recommend adding a colon after the word “comprising”
In claim 6, ln 1: “The hardness-adjustable cushion according to claim 1, …” should be amended to be consistent with the language of the other previous claims.
Claim 7 is drafted without a clear transition from preamble to claim body.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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. For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the horizontal cross-section of the air cushion body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
RE Claim 1 (an throughout the claims): The term “mesh-line” in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mesh-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the following limitation “a recessed platform is provided at the bottom of the polygonal hole” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if a recessed platform is provided at the bottom of one of the polygonal holes or if a recessed platform is provided at the bottom of each of the polygonal holes. Furthermore, it is unclear if there is a ventilation hole at the centre of a singular recessed platform or at the centre of each recessed platform.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lower part of the air cushion body " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also how is the bottom “open ended”?
RE Claim 8 (and dependents): The terms “hard” and “soft” recited throughout are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface of the soft foam" in lines 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
(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 1-5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dry et al. (US 9,688,174 B2)(hereinafter Dry).
RE Claim 1: Dry discloses a cushion with adjustable softness and hardness (multi-cell seat cushion), comprising:
an air cushion body (Fig 5A), characterised in that:
an inflation chamber is provided inside the air cushion body (Fig 5A), and
in the horizontal cross-section of the air cushion body, the inflation chamber is configured into a mesh-like shape (horizontal cross section of cells 26)(alternatively of cells 120)(alternatively of webbing 112; see col 5, ln 35-45).
RE Claim 2: Dry discloses the cushion with adjustable softness and hardness according to claim 1, characterised in that:
polygonal holes (26) are distributed on the air cushion body (Fig 5A), and any two adjacent polygonal holes are connected by support ribs (webbing 112),
wherein the mesh-like shaped inflation chamber is formed inside the support ribs (Fig 5A).
RE Claim 3: Dry discloses the cushion with adjustable softness and hardness according to claim 2, characterised in that:
the polygonal holes are regular triangles, squares, regular pentagons, or regular hexagons (col 4, ln 37-45).
RE Claim 4: Dry discloses the cushion with adjustable softness and hardness according to claim 2, characterized in that:
a recessed platform (112) is provided at the bottom of the polygonal hole (below 120), and
a ventilation hole (116) is provided at the centre of the recessed platform (Fig 4A).
RE Claim 5: Dry discloses the cushion with adjustable softness and hardness according to claim 1, characterised in that:
a supporting surrounding frame is circumferentially arranged on the air cushion body (formed by plurality of 120),
the interior of the supporting surrounding frame being in communication with the inflation chamber (Fig 5A), and
an air hole being arranged on its exterior (128).
RE Claim 7: Dry discloses an automobile seat, characterised in that:
a cushion with adjustable softness and hardness according to claim 1 (previously discussed) is installed inside a seat frame of the seat (Figs 1-3 and 6)(also see col 7, ln 18-50).
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.
Claim 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brnick (US 2010/0207443 A1)(hereinafter Brnick).
RE Claim 6: Dry discloses the hardness-adjustable cushion according to claim 1 as previously discussed.
Dry further discloses the lower part of the air cushion body is open-ended and is fixedly attached with a bottom plate (see Fig 6)(attached to 22 via 152).
Dry further teaches the bottom plate being provided with through-holes (Fig 6) corresponding to individual ventilation holes (correspond to 128).
Dry teaches various attachment mechanisms per col 7, ln 35-50. Concerning attachment by welding. This is a product-by-process claim. 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).
Furthermore, Brncick teaches a vehicle seat cushion with inflatable air bladders (analogous art) and further teaches attachment by welding (para 0047). 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 Dry in view of Brnick such that the air cushion body is welded to the bottom plate for the advantages of secure attachment.
Claims 8-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2022/0305975 A1)(hereinafter Zhang).
RE Claim 8: Dry discloses the automobile seat according to claim 7.
Dry teaches cover stock 46 for occupant seating per col 7, ln 30. Dry also teaches the seat frame 22 which is a hard surface. The cushion with adjustable harness and softness is arranged between 46 and 22.
Dry does not explicitly teach soft foam and hard foam.
However, Zhang teaches a device for adjusting softness of a seat (analogous art) and further teaches an adjustable cushion arranged between foam materials per para 0018, 0021, 0022, 0043, 0045 and throughout.
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 Dry in view of Zhang such that the seat frame comprises a soft foam for occupant seating and a hard foam arranged below the soft foam as taught by Zhang for the advantages of user comfortability.
RE Claim 9: Dry as modified discloses he automobile seat according to claim 8. Dry further discloses a ventilation device (150) is arranged below the hard foam (Fig 6).
RE Claim 10: Dry as modified discloses the automobile seat according to claim 8. Dry further discloses a seat cover (46) is provided on the surface of the soft foam (Fig 6).
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 seat cushions with compression features.
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