DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I (allegedly claims 1-5 and 14-20) in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examiner has not established that the species are independent or distinct or that there is a serious search burden, alleging that each species would essentially require the same exact search. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Species A-E are independent/distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, e.g. the claims to species A recite netting and an elastic band sewn into the headrest with a join seam and deck seam; the claims to species B recite a generally u-shaped frame “connected” to a headrest having a webbed pocket with a band and a connecting structure including a heat stake; the claims to species C-E recite the pocket is formed by a flap with a stiffener, a cord, and grommets through which the cord is threaded. These species are clearly distinct as each comprise significantly different structures to form the pocket itself and to attach the pocket to the headrest.
Furthermore, a serious search burden exists because, at least, each species requires a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, species A requires the pocket to be integrally formed with the headrest because it is sewn into the headrest – this would require a search in B60N2/80, 879, and 2002/899 because the pocket is not detachable from the seat/headrest. Species B would require a different search in classes such as B60R7/043 because the frame is separate from the headrest and the pocket is secured to an inside surface of the frame. Furthermore, each of the species requires different search queries due to specific structural characteristics of each – e.g. connecting the elastic band via a join seam and deck seam, providing a stiffener on a flap (no flexible netting or elastic), a binding seam, a cord extending through grommets in the headrest and in the flap, and a webbed pocket being secured to the frame using a heat stake. These are just a few examples of the distinctly different features of the species which would require different search queries and strategies to properly examine each species. Additionally, the primary classification for each species may be one of B60R7/005 or B60N2/879 but each species has additional classifications based on specific features of each that would need to be searched – e.g. B60R7/043, B60N2/58, B60N2/90, A47C7/622, Y10T29/49826 to name a few.
While applicant has identified claims 14-20 as being directed to elected species A, these claims are clearly directed to species B as they require a U-shaped frame which is only present in species B/Figure 2. As such, claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species B-E, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/29/25.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abro et al. (US 9,421,892) in view of Browne et al. (US 8,061,550).
Regarding claims 1-4, Abro discloses a headrest storage pocket (Figure 5) for use in a vehicle seat, said headrest storage pocket comprising: a pocket 52, said pocket is attached to a rear surface 36 of a headrest 30 of the vehicle seat, said pocket having first and second side edges 54, and a bottom edge 52, wherein said first side edge, said second side edge and said bottom edge are secured by being sewn to said rear surface of the headrest (col. 3 lines 59-62).
Abro does not disclose the pocket being made of netting and an elastic band being attached to a top edge of the pocket. Browne et al. discloses that it is known to make a pocket on the backside of a vehicle seat 18 from netting 14 having an elastic band 20 at a top edge of the pocket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the pocket of Abro with netting having an elastic band in order to allow larger and/or different shaped articles to be held on the backside of the headrest.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abro et al. (US 9,421,892) in view of Browne et al. (US 8,061,550), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Dooley et al. (US 8,191,218).
Regarding claim 5, modified Abro does not disclose any specific stitching or seam being used to secure the pocket/band to the headrest and therefore does not disclose a join seam and a deck seam. Dooley teaches that it is known to form a seam in vehicle upholstery (Figure 7) using a join seam and deck seam – see Figure 7, 46 and 48, col. 3 lines 62-col. 4 line 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a join seam and deck seam to secure the netting and band to the headrest with a seam that is more aesthetically pleasing while maintaining strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734