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 disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025, 02/20/2026 and 04/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. Examination of the 711 references in the 8 IDS submitted on 04/03/2025 is considered burdensome without further information from the applicant. For example, if only 2 minutes were spent per reference to determine their relevance to the application, the examination of 711 references would take three work days. Applicant is requested to provide a listing of the reason each reference was included in the IDS. Examples of such reasons can be found in under 37 CFR 1.105.
Further, if Applicant has determined that any specific references are particularly relevant to the claims under examination, Applicant is requested to identify the references so that examination can be efficiently focused.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase ‘foam member’ found in claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, & 18 – 20 is not found in the specification. The phrase is interpreted to be the ‘foam core’ in the specification.
The ‘wire’ referred to in claim 5 is interpreted to be the ‘border wire’ in the specification and not the ‘suspension wires’.
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, 6, 8 – 10, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamoto et al. US 20170043695 A1 (hereinafter Kitamoto).
Re. Cl. 1, Kitamoto discloses an assembly (Fig. 1, Ref. 100a) comprising a mesh member (Fig. 1, Ref. 11), where the mesh member comprises a set of filaments of polymeric material (Fig. 5, Ref. 12; Para. 0097 & 0104), wherein at least two members of the set of filaments are looped and bonded to each other (Fig. 5 Ref. 13; Para. 0103-0104); and a foam member (Fig. 3, Ref. 41; Para. 0097) at least partially surrounding the filaments of the mesh member (Fig. 2; Para. 0097) and at least partially filling interstitial spaces between the filaments of the mesh member (Fig. 3, Ref. 51; Para. 0098).
Re. Cl. 6, Kitamoto discloses that the foam member and the mesh member have recesses (Fig. 22, Ref. 115 & Fig. 6, Ref. 17).
Re. Cl. 8, Kitamoto discloses that the assembly comprises a seat bottom cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 100a; Para. 0096)
Re. Cl. 9, Kitamoto discloses that the assembly comprises a seat back cushion (Fig. 38, Ref. 200a; Para. 0148)
Re. Cl. 10, Kitamoto discloses a method (Para. 0103) comprising placing a mesh member into a mold (Fig. 16, Ref. 300a & 300b; Para. 0113), wherein the mesh member comprises a set of filaments of polymeric material (Fig. 5, Ref. 12; Para. 0097 & 0104), wherein at least two members of the set of filaments are looped and bonded to each other (Fig. 5 Ref. 13; Para. 0103-0104); and injecting foam into the mold such that the foam at least partially surrounds the filaments and fills interstitial spaces between the filaments (Fig. 3, Ref. 51; Para. 0098).
Re. Cl. 15, Kitamoto discloses removing a cushion from the mold (Para. 0118), the cushion comprising the foam and the mesh member (Fig. 23, Ref. 160; Para. 0118); and covering at least a first surface of the cushion with a trim cover (Fig. 23, Ref. 112; Para. 0119).
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.
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.
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamoto.
Re. Cl. 2, Kitamoto discloses a mesh member and a foam member
Re. Cl. 2, the preferred embodiment of Kitamoto fails to disclose that the mesh member is adjacent to a bottom surface of the foam member. Another embodiment of Kitamoto discloses that the mesh member (Fig. 36, Ref. 11) is adjacent to a bottom surface of the foam member (Fig. 36, Ref. 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with such that the mesh member is adjacent to a bottom surface of the foam member. Doing so would provide a layer of foam cushioning between the trim cover and mesh member, making the seat more comfortable for a user.
Re. Cl. 3, Kitamoto discloses that the foam member comprises a central portion (Fig. 1, Ref. 106) and two bolsters (Fig. 1, Ref. 108); the bolsters symmetrically attached to opposite sides of the central portion and extending beyond a top surface of the central portion opposite the bottom surface (See Fig. 1 & 3).
Re. Cl. 4, Kitamoto discloses that the mesh member extends from a first of the bolsters through the central portion and into a second of the bolsters (See Fig. 1 & 3).
Re. Cl. 5, Kitamoto discloses that no wire extends between the central portion and either of the bolsters (See Fig. 1).
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamoto in view of Takaoka US 20160174725 A1 (hereinafter Takaoka).
Re. Cl. 11, Kitamoto discloses extruding the polymeric material to form the set of filaments (Para. 0104).
Re. Cl. 11, Kitamoto fails to disclose a die plate or a conveyor. Takaoka teaches a method of manufacturing a mesh member (Para. 0140) for a seat (Para. 0092) by extruding the polymeric material through a plurality of openings in a die plate (Fig. 5, Ref. 33; Para. 0141) to form the set of filaments (Fig. 6, Ref. 20; Para. 0134 & 0141) and depositing the set of filaments onto a conveyor (Fig. 6, Ref. 14 & 15; Para. 0147) to form the mesh member (Fig. 6, Ref. 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Takaoka's teaching of a method of manufacturing a mesh member with a die plate and a conveyor. Doing so would allow for the desired looping and bonding of the filaments to achieve the desired structure of the mesh member.
Re. Cl. 12, Kitamoto fails to disclose cooling the filaments. Takaoka teaches immersing the mesh member in a fluid to cool the filaments (Fig. 5, Ref. 18; Para. 0132 & 0150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Takaoka's teaching of immersing the mesh member in a fluid to cool the filaments. Doing so would solidify the heated and bonded filaments into the mesh member as desired.
Re. Cl. 13, Kitamoto discloses that the filaments are solidified to form a mesh member (Para. 0104).
Re. Cl. 13, Kitamoto fails to disclose how the mesh member is processed. Takaoka teaches processing the mesh member before placing the mesh member into the mold such that the mesh member conforms to a surface of the mold (Fig. 9A, Ref. 50; Para. 0136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Takaoka's teaching of processing the mesh member before placing the mesh member into the mold such that the mesh member conforms to a surface of the mold. Doing so would form the solidified mesh member into a predetermined shape such that it sits within the mold as desired before the cushion is formed.
Re. Cl. 14, Kitamoto fails to disclose a specific thickness of the mesh member. Takaoka teaches a thickness of the mesh member is between 10 mm and 25 mm (Para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Takaoka's teaching of a thickness of the mesh member is between 10 mm and 25 mm. Doing so would prevent an undesirably low resilience due to the mesh member being too thin or an excessively high resilience due to the member being too thick (Para. 0089).
Claims 7 & 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamoto in view of Mathew et al. US 20220001780 A1 (hereinafter Mathew).
Re. Cl. 7, Kitamoto discloses that the foam member is formed when a liquid foam material (Fig. 17, Ref. 40; Para. 0114) is solidified (Para. 0114).
Re. Cl. 7, Kitamoto fails to disclose the material of the foam member. Mathew teaches a seat (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) with a foam member (Fig. 1, Ref. 34), where the molded foam member comprises polyurethane (Para. 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Mathew's teaching of a foam member comprising polyurethane. Doing so applies the industrial properties of polyurethane to yield a lightweight, durable, and ergonomically supportive seat cushion.
Re. Cl. 16, Kitamoto discloses that the seat cushion is fixed to a base (See Fig. 36).
Re. Cl. 16, Kitamoto fails to explicitly disclose a frame. Mathew teaches a seat (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) with a cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 34) with a first surface (Fig. 1, Ref. 38) and a second surface (Fig. 1, Ref. 40) opposite to the first surface, a frame (Fig. 1, Ref. 14) attached to the second surface (See Fig. 1), and a method step of attaching the frame to the cushion (Para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Mathew's teaching of a frame. Doing so would support the cushion assembly and provide a mounting point to attach the cushion assembly to a larger apparatus such as couch body or automobile.
Re. Cl. 17, Kitamoto fails to explicitly disclose the lack of a scrim. Mathew teaches that scrim is not used between the frame and the second surface (See Fig. 1) and notes that the use of additional reinforcing material for foam backing is optional (Para. 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Mathew's teaching of not using a scrim. Doing so simplifies manufacturing by opting out of unnecessary components.
Re. Cl. 18, Kitamoto discloses a mesh member (Fig. 1, Ref. 11), the mesh member comprising a set of filaments of polymeric material (Fig. 5, Ref. 12; Para. 0097 & 0104), wherein at least two members of the set of filaments are looped and bonded to each other (Fig. 5 Ref. 13; Para. 0103-0104); and a foam member (Fig. 3, Ref. 41; Para. 0097) at least partially surrounding the filaments of the mesh member (Fig. 2; Para. 0097).
Kitamoto also discloses the mesh member fixed to a base (See Fig. 36).
Re. Cl. 18, Kitamoto fails to disclose a frame. Mathew teaches a frame fixed to the cushion at the base (Fig. 1, Ref. 14; Para. 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitamoto with Mathew's teaching of a frame such that the frame is fixed to the mesh member at the base of the cushion. Doing so would provide a mounting point to attach the cushion assembly to the base.
Re. Cl. 19, Kitamoto discloses that the foam member surrounds the filaments of the mesh member (Fig. 2; Para. 0097) and fills interstitial spaces between the filaments of the mesh member (Fig. 3, Ref. 51; Para. 0098).
Re. Cl. 20, Kitamoto discloses that the foam member comprises a central portion (Fig. 1, Ref. 106) and two bolsters (Fig. 1, Ref. 108); the bolsters symmetrically attached to opposite sides of the central portion (See Fig. 1 & 3), and the mesh member extends from a first of the bolsters through the central portion and into a second of the bolsters (See Fig. 1 & 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hallcok et al. US 20240375567 A1, Mogi et al. US 20150158214 A1, and Park et al. US 5456777 A.
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELILA S KEBEDE whose telephone number is (571)270-0369. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 2:00PM, Mon - Thurs.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571) 272-4797. 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.
/GELILA KEBEDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3632 /TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights