June 18, 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant has already claimed in Claim 21 a “cushion assembly, comprising: a first plurality of polymeric strands defining a first body”. Therefore, claiming that “the first cushion is a body of polymeric strands” in claim 26 does not further limit Claim 21 in any way and it is therefore a considered a duplicate claim.
Applicant is advised that should claim 21 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 33-35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Galbreath et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,946,649 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
192
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
178
202
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
320
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
276
248
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 33 and 37, Galbreath et al teach a method of coupling a cushion comprising: disposing a first fastener in a first cushion 32 defining a first surface portion, the first fastener comprising a first retainer portion and a first protruding portion 40, 70 attached to the first retainer portion and configured to extend through the first surface portion (see Fig. 7A showing the “protruding portion” extending through the first surface portion); disposing a second fastener in a second cushion defining a second surface portion, the second fastener comprises a second protruding portion 52 defining a cavity 76 (see Figures 7A and 15-17); that is adapted to couple with the first protruding portion 40,70 of the first fastener, and the second fastener comprising a second retainer portion 24, 74 (see Figures 7A and 15-17); and
coupling the first and second fasteners together such that the protruding portion extends through the first surface portion to the second fastener to couple the first and second cushions together.
As for claim 34, Galbreath et al. teach that the first and second cushions are coupled together without adhesive.
As for Claim 35, Galbreath et al. teach that wherein the second cushion comprises a second side defining a second surface, and a second slot disposed below the second surface, and the second fastener is disposed in the second slot, as explained above in the rejection of claims 33 and 37.
As for Claims 38, Galbreath et al teach that the first fastener is disposed in a first slot of the first cushion below the first surface portion of the first cushion and the second fastener is disposed in a second slot of the second cushion below the second surface portion of the second cushion.
As for Claims 39, Galbreath et al further comprises defining the first slot in the first cushion and the second slot in the second cushion.
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 21-32, 36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbreath et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,946,649 B2) in view of Brennan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,549,707 B2).
Galbreath et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a vehicle seat that includes a cushion assembly comprising: a first body 32 comprising a first side defining a first surface; a first fastener comprising a retainer portion 52, 70 disposed in a first slot in the first body and a protruding portion protruding from the retainer portion through the first surface; a second plurality of polymeric strands defining a second body 30 comprising a second side defining a second surface; and a second fastener 56 disposed in the second body and configured to cooperate with the protruding portion such that the first body and the second body are coupled together but does not teach that the first body and second body are defined by a first plurality of polymeric strands and a second plurality of polymeric strands, respectively.
PNG
media_image6.png
220
240
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Brennan et al. teach the concept of a vehicle seat that includes a cushion layer 30 defined by a plurality of polymeric strands. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cushion assembly, as taught by Galbreath et al., to include cushion bodies defined by polymeric strands, as taught by Brennan et al., since a cushion body defined by polymeric strands enhances breathability and comfort, reduces weight, provides durability and long-term performance and increases sustainability.
As for Claim 22, Galbreath et al. teach that the first body defines a first slot below the first surface and the first fastener is disposed in the first slot.
As for Claims 23 and 35, Galbreath et al. teach that the first body defines a first slot below the first surface and the first fastener is disposed in the first slot.
As for Claim 24, Galbreath et al. teach that the protruding portion is configured to extend through the second surface of the second body to the second slot.
As for Claim 25, Galbreath et al. teach that the second fastener is configured to receive the protruding portion of the first fastener.
As for Claim 26, Galbreath et al. teach that the second fastener comprises a retainer portion 52 and the retainer portion 52 (Figures 4B-4C) of the first or second fastener is barbed.
As for Claim 27, Galbreath et al. teach that the second fastener comprises a retainer portion and a corresponding protruding portion that extends from the retainer portion of the second fastener through the second surface and is configured to receive the protruding portion of the first fastener.
As for Claim 28, Galbreath et al. teach that the first fastener comprises a shaft portion and a head portion opposite the retainer portion , the head portion comprising a larger dimension than the shaft portion such that the second fastener cooperates with the shaft portion to engage the first and second fasteners together (Figures 4B-4C).
As for Claim 29, Galbreath et al. teach that the retainer portion of the first fastener and/or the second fastener has a cross-sectional area that is greater than a cross-sectional area of the protruding portion of the first fastener and/or the second fastener.
As for Claims 30-31, Galbreath et al. teach that the fasteners comprise a thermoplastic polymer material (see the specification at column 6, lines 30-37 where describes that “The edge of the trim can be secured to the structural layer be retainer, zipper or plastic strips and clips. This foam top surface may be broken up into sections sewn to the lower trim layer as styling dictates. This can allow the foam-trim module to be slid forward and out of the clips. The edge of the trim can be secured to the structural layer by a retainer, zipper or plastic strips and clips.”.
As for claim 31, Galbreath et al. teach that the polymeric strands could very well comprise the same thermoplastic polymer material as the fasteners.
As for claim 32, Galbreath et al. teach a vehicle seat assembly comprising a frame 14 supporting the cushion assembly.
As for claim 40, Galbreath et al. teach that the first protruding portion comprises at least two first fastening mechanisms and the second protruding portion comprises at least two second fastening mechanisms, wherein the at least two first fastening mechanisms are adapted to cooperate with the at least two second fastening mechanisms such that the first body and the second body are coupled together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant points out that “…..that page 4 of the Office Action indicates that claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, upon review, no specific mapping or analysis has been provided for claims 32, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, this response addresses claims 32, 33, and 36 under the assumption that the Office intended to reject claims 32, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103.”
The examiner confirms that Claim-32 was inadvertently omitted from the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. And Claim 33- 35 should have been included with the rejection of Claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. 102. Claim 36 was included with the rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 since claims 21 and 36 both claimed that the first cushion is a body of polymeric strands.
Applicant argues that “…..Galbreath, in its entirety fails to describe the grooves (56) comprising any protruding portion with a cavity that is adapted to cooperate with the first protruding portion such that the first body and the second body are coupled together, as recited in independent claim 21. Further, the Office Action does not set forth any clear reasoning, evidence, and mapping of the excerpts from Galbreath against the features of dependent claim 27. Instead, it merely references Galbreath without explaining how the cited disclosure corresponds to the specific features recited in claim 27. This is improper.”
Not only were the originally filed claims extremely broad, Applicant has only now added subject matter that he thinks renders the claims patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Galbreath et al. clearly teach structures that are the structural and function functional equivalents of the claimed subject matter. The structures to which the “attachment members 40, 52, 70” are attached are “retainer members” and the “clips 52” have cavities that receive the “protruding portions” of the “first fasteners”. Galbreath et al. teach that both “first fasteners” and “second fasteners” that are disposed in first and second slots, respectively.
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 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 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights