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 § 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 1, 3, 6, 8-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiboni et al. (US 2020/0023781) in view of Sato (US 2016/0229338).
Regarding claim 1, Tiboni teaches a vehicle which includes a panel defining a portion of an interior area in the vehicle and having a concave shape, and a reversible pocket configured to be attached to the panel in a stowed configuration in which the reversible pocket conforms to the shape of the panel and a deployed configuration in which the reversible pocket extends into the cargo area and defines a storage area together with the concave shape of the panel (“a cladding part, comprising: a contoured surface” & “covering on the contoured surface, wherein the covering forms a visible surface of a wall, wherein at least one wall portion of the covering is transferable into a folded-out position in which the wall portion forms at least one outer wall region of a receptacle, and the at least one wall portion is transferable into a folded-in position in which the cladding part does not have a receptacle.) (Paragraph [0004]; Figs. 1-2 provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tiboni is silent with respect to the reversible pockets being formed from a textile being a knitted fabric, woven fabric, stitch bonded fabric, or mesh material.
Sato teaches an interior component in which a covering is applied to an outer surface of a base (Paragraph [0001]). The covering is formed from a transparent base, a covering and a light emitting unit wherein the covering is a knitted fabric of an outer yarn of a dark color and an inner yarn of a brighter color (Paragraph [0006]). During nighttime or dark environments, when the light emitting unit is illuminated, the light is transmitted through the gaps of the outer and inner yarn and illuminates the inner yarn producing a visual effect (Paragraphs [0005]-[0007]; [0024]). The knitted fabric may be applied to various interior components of vehicles, including door trims which increases the brightness of the entire passenger compartment and improves comfort in the space (Paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the door trim and the reversible pocket of Tiboni such that the fabric is a knitted fabric having a darker outer yarn and a brighter inner yarn in order to produce a desired visual effect when light is emitted through the fabric increasing the brightness of the compartments which house the pockets. It additionally would have been obvious to form the pocket and the door trim of Tiboni from these knitted materials in order to provide the desired visual effects (“formed from a same textile throughout” & “wherein the at least one wall portion and the surrounding regions are formed from the same textile”). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reversible pocket (“wall portion”) and the door panel (“surrounding regions”) are made continuous as illustrated in figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the pocket is able to transfer between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (“wherein the at least one wall portion is flexible”).
Regarding claim 6, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the pocket is able to transfer between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the pocket being intrinsically stiff.
Regarding claims 8-9, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Tiboni is silent with respect to the pockets being translucent when in the stowed configuration and non-translucent when in the deployed configuration.
However, these limitations appear to be properties which are dependent on the type of material for forming the pocket and the configurations of the pocket and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an identical structure would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
In the instant case, the wall portions are formed from a textile material and are transferable into a position which does have a receptacle and one which does not have a receptacle for use in a vehicle (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0003]).
Tiboni in view of Sato teaches each of these features as discussed above in use with a vehicle and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pockets of Tiboni formed from the fabrics of Sato would be translucent when in the stowed configuration and non-translucent when in the deployed configuration, as required by claims 8-9.
Regarding claim 10, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the stowed configuration of the reversible pocket conforms to the shape of the panel.
Regarding claim 12, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, both the pockets of Tiboni and Sato are pulled away from the contoured surface in order to allow access to the deployed and open configurations of the respective pockets and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the opening of the pockets teaches a jump, or fold from a first position to a second position.
Regarding claim 13, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 3, the reversible pocket is a single layer of material identified by #106 (“wherein the textile covering is not supported by an underlying susbtrate”) (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Tiboni teaches the reversible pockets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the textile pocket taught by the combination above would be considered a textile “base” as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Tiboni teaches the reversible pocket as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figures 1 and 2 above, the “stiffener” is considered to be the uppermost portion of the reversible pocket.
Regarding claim 16, Tiboni teaches the reversible pocket as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figures 1 and 2, the entirety of the pocket is able to stiffen out and remain open.
Regarding claim 17, Tiboni teaches the reversible pocket as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the pockets and the door trims are formed from the knitted fabrics of Sato.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 5-8, applicant argues that Tiboni and Ercolano fail to teach each of the limitations of claim 1 as amended. Firstly, applicant argues that the instant claims require the wall portion and the surrounding portions to be continuous and formed from the same textile whereas the reversible pockets of Tiboni are attached to the contoured surface via connectors and openings. Resultantly, the pocket and the surrounding regions are not continuous and formed from the same a same textile throughout. Furthermore, Tiboni and Ercolano are silent with respect to the textile covering being a knitted fabric, woven fabric, stitch bonded fabric, or mesh material.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments. Regarding the continuous claim language, the limitation of claim 1 requires the textile covering having at least one wall portion and surrounding regions which are formed from the same textile and are continuous. However, the claims do not require the wall portion and the surrounding regions to be directly continuous or continuous so that the textiles of the wall portion directly contact the textiles of the surrounding regions. The limitation of “is formed from a same textile throughout” does not overcome this deficiency such that the limitation may be interpreted as the textile used throughout the cladding part is the same textile rather than each of the surface and the entirety of the textile covering is formed from the same textile. Therefore, the examiner contends that the limitations of continuous and formed from a same textile throughout does not overcome the teachings of Tiboni.
The examiner concedes in that Tiboni is silent with respect to the textile covering being a knitted fabric, woven-fabric, stich-bonded fabric, or mesh material. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made further in view of Sato as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights