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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on November 14, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 10 are amended; claims 2-5, 8, and 9 are cancelled; claims 11 and 12 are new; resulting in claims 1, 6, 7, and 10-12 pending for examination.
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, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Behrman (US 2,897,603).
Regarding claim 1, Behrman teaches a flexible and axially extensible and collapsible fabric tube having substantially permanent pleats or corrugations in the walls thereof to maintain an open cross section in use despite bending or flexing of the tube (col 1, Ln 57-54). In one embodiment, the pleated flexible fabric conduit (corrugated bellows) is used as a hose (55) for a vacuum cleaner (col 5, Ln 44-75; Figs. 5-6). In another embodiment, the pleated textile fabric tube can be used as a toy, such as a dragon or a snake (col 6, Ln 25-37; col 7, Ln 58-col 8, Ln 54; Figs. 11-12).
It is noted that the preamble limitation reciting “An interior part for a vehicle” is interpreted as functional language related to the intended use of the claimed product and is considered to be met when the prior art product is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The pleated fabric tube taught by Behrman is capable of being used as an interior part for a vehicle, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Behrman teaches that the hose (decorative part) is made from a light-weight fabric (textile material) which is capable of taking a permanent heat-set pleating, wherein pleats or corrugations (25) are formed in the fabric cylinder and are subjected to heat in order to heat and dry the fabric and permanently set therein the pleated configuration desired (col 3, Ln 68-col 4, Ln 51). The resiliency, extensibility, and flexibility of the hose imparted by the pleats enable it to be moved and curved and axially collapsed and extended in use without kinking and without collapsing in a diametric direction (col 2, Ln 35-42; col 4, Ln 55-67). The pleats therefore correspond to the claimed plurality of fold sections, which are melted portions that form respective bending points at which the tube is foldable. Given that Behrman teaches that the corrugated tube is axially extensible and collapsible as a result of the corrugations or pleats, the length of the tube is understood to be changeable between a first length when the hose is in a retracted state and a second length which is longer than the first length when the hose is in an expanded state.
With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the interior part is foldable at the bending points such that a length of the corrugated bellows is changeable between a first length where the interior part is in a retracted state and forms a cover and a second length where the interior part is in an expended state and forms a stowage space”, it is noted that this limitation contains functional language directed to an intended use of the claimed interior part. In particular, the limitations requiring that the interior part “forms a cover” in a retracted state and “forms a stowage space” in an expanded state are directed to intended uses of the claimed interior part. The extensible and collapsible pleated tube taught by Behrman is interpreted as satisfying these functional limitations given that the tube is capable of being used as a cover in a retracted state and is capable of being used as a stowage space in an expanded state.
Regarding claim 6, Behrman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the hose may be made of textile materials which are knitted (col 3, Ln 68-72), thus corresponding to either a 2D knit material or a 3D knit material.
Regarding claim 7, Behrman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that, in storage, a tubular element (43; carrier part) can be inserted into the hose (55; decorative part) (col 6, Ln 2-12; Fig. 7), such that the tubular element is partially connected to the hose.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrman (US 2,897,603) in view of Slone (US 2004/0134013).
Regarding claim 10, Behrman teaches a flexible and axially extensible and collapsible fabric tube having substantially permanent pleats or corrugations in the walls thereof to maintain an open cross section in use despite bending or flexing of the tube (col 1, Ln 57-54). In one embodiment, the pleated flexible fabric conduit (corrugated bellows) is used as a hose (55) for a vacuum cleaner (col 5, Ln 44-75; Figs. 5-6).
It is noted that the limitation reciting “An interior part for a vehicle” is interpreted as functional language related to the intended use of the claimed product and is considered to be met when the prior art product is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2111.02(II). The pleated fabric tube taught by Behrman is capable of being used as an interior part for a vehicle, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Behrman teaches that the hose (decorative part) is made from a light-weight fabric (textile material) which is capable of taking a permanent heat-set pleating, wherein pleats or corrugations (25) are formed in the fabric cylinder and are subjected to heat in order to heat and dry the fabric and permanently set therein the pleated configuration desired (col 3, Ln 68-col 4, Ln 51). The resiliency, extensibility, and flexibility of the hose imparted by the pleats enable it to be moved and curved and axially collapsed and extended in use without kinking and without collapsing in a diametric direction (col 2, Ln 35-42; col 4, Ln 55-67). The pleats therefore correspond to the claimed plurality of fold sections, which are melted portions that form respective bending points at which the tube is foldable. Given that Behrman teaches that the corrugated tube is axially extensible and collapsible as a result of the corrugations or pleats, the length of the tube is understood to be changeable between a first length when the hose is in a retracted state and a second length which is longer than the first length when the hose is in an expanded state.
With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the interior part is foldable at the bending points such that a length of the corrugated bellows is changeable between a first length where the interior part is in a retracted state and forms a cover and a second length where the interior part is in an expended state and forms a stowage space”, it is noted that this limitation contains functional language directed to an intended use of the claimed interior part. In particular, the limitations requiring that the interior part “forms a cover” in a retracted state and “forms a stowage space” in an expanded state are directed to intended uses of the claimed interior part. The extensible and collapsible pleated tube taught by Behrman is interpreted as satisfying these functional limitations given that the tube is capable of being used as a cover in a retracted state and is capable of being used as a stowage space in an expanded state.
Although Behrman teaches a pleated tube which satisfies all of the limitations directed to the claimed interior part, Behrman differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a vehicle which includes the pleated tube.
Slone teaches a vehicle (10) comprising a vacuum cleaner assembly (28) including a suction nozzle (30), a vacuum hose (32), and a reel (34) connected to a vacuum source and a repository for collection of debris ([0066], Figs. 1-6). Slone teaches that the vacuum hose is long enough and extendable far enough to reach outside the vehicle, such that the vacuum makes it convenient to clean both the interior and exterior of a vehicle ([0020], [0074]-[0075]).
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 extensible and collapsible vacuum hose taught by Behrman by using the hose in a vacuum cleaner assembly within a vehicle interior, as taught by Slone, in order to enable convenient cleaning of the interior and exterior of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Behrman in view of Slone teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. As noted above, Behrman does not teach the hose being used in a vehicle, and Slone is relied upon to address this feature. Although Slone teaches that the vehicle comprises a steering wheel ([0068], Fig. 5), Behrman in view of Slone differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that the vacuum hose is a steering wheel cover disposed on the steering wheel.
However, it is noted that the common definition of the word “cover” is something that covers or is lain, placed, or spread over or upon something else (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cover). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation requiring that the interior part is a steering wheel cover disposed on the steering wheel may be interpreted as being satisfied by any object that is lain or placed upon a steering wheel.
Given that Slone illustrates embodiments in which the vacuum is used to clean areas surrounding the steering wheel (Fig. 5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lay or place the vacuum hose over a part of the steering wheel, such that the hose reads on the claimed steering wheel cover disposed on the steering wheel. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vacuum hose may cover or rest on the steering wheel, for example, in a case where the vacuum hose is extended from a position under the driver’s seat over to the dashboard on the passenger side of the vehicle. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a user may get tired and need to rest while vacuuming hard-to-reach places, such as the far areas of the dashboard, wherein the steering wheel may be a convenient place to temporarily lay down the vacuum hose.
Regarding claim 12, Behrman in view of Slone teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. With respect to the limitation requiring that the interior part forms a stowage space of the vehicle, it is noted that the extensible and collapsible vacuum hose taught by Behrman is capable of being used to store small items therein, and thus is capable of being used as a stowage space in the vehicle.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstine (US 2,618,987) in view of Behrman (US 2,897,603).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 10, and 11, Goldstine teaches a steering wheel cover (10; interior part) made from two bands (11, 12) which are heat-sealed to each other to form a unitary band (col 2, Ln 1-23; Figs. 1, 3). Goldstine teaches that the steering wheel cover is intended for use on steering wheels of automobiles and other vehicles (col 1, Ln 1-3), wherein in Figure 1, the cover is shown as being disposed on a steering wheel.
The band (12; carrier part) may have a flat, unornamented surface, while the band (11; decorative part) has a puckered or pleated exposed outer surface, wherein the puckers or pleats run in a direction transverse to the length of the sheet (col 2, Ln 12-15, 52-55; Figs. 4-6). Goldstine teaches that the crinkly appearance imparted by the puckers or pleats adds to the ornamental appearance of the cover (col 3, Ln 40-58). In the process of forming the puckered or pleated surface, the sheet used to form the outer band is provided on a heated drum, and is backed with crepe paper which assists in maintaining the puckers or pleats until the sheet cools, whereupon the puckers or pleats are firmly set (col 2, Ln 46-col 3, Ln 4; Fig. 7). The steering wheel cover therefore is a corrugated bellows, wherein the band (11; decorative part) has a plurality of fold sections which are melted portions of the sheet, wherein the melted portions form respective bending points, such that the cover is foldable at the bending points.
Goldstine teaches that when the cover is stretched to place it on the steering wheel, the pleats in the outer band are extended, such that the high degree of stretch causes the band to hug the steering wheel closely so that there is no slippage thereon (col 3, Ln 31-39; Figs. 5-6). Goldstine therefore teaches that a length of the steering wheel cover is changeable between a first length where the cover is in a retracted state and a second length which is longer than the first length where the interior part is in an expanded state.
With respect to the limitation reciting “wherein the interior part is foldable at the bending points such that a length of the corrugated bellows is changeable between a first length where the interior part is in a retracted state and forms a cover and a second length where the interior part is in an expended state and forms a stowage space”, it is noted that this limitation contains functional language directed to an intended use of the claimed interior part. In particular, the limitations requiring that the interior part “forms a cover” in a retracted state and “forms a stowage space” in an expanded state are directed to intended uses of the claimed interior part. The stretchable steering wheel cover taught by Goldstine is interpreted as satisfying these functional limitations given that the cover is capable of being used as a cover in a retracted state and is capable of being used as a stowage space in an expanded state.
Although Goldstine teaches that the bands (11, 12) may be made from an elastic synthetic thermoplastic material in film or sheet form (col 2, Ln 3-11), Goldstine differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the band (11) having a puckered or pleated surface is composed of a textile material.
Behrman teaches a flexible and axially extensible and collapsible fabric tube having substantially permanent pleats or corrugations in the walls thereof to maintain an open cross section in use despite bending or flexing of the tube (col 1, Ln 57-54). Similar to Goldstine, Behrman teaches that it is important that the fabric used is one in which the pleats or corrugations may be substantially permanently set to provide the desired stiffening and extensibility (col 9, Ln 66-70). Behrman teaches that synthetic fabrics, in particular nylon fabrics, give highly satisfactory results because of the ease of imparting the pleated configuration thereto and the permanence with which the pleats are retained by the fabric once they are heat set (col 10, Ln 1-12).
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 steering wheel cover taught by Goldstine by using a synthetic textile material as the material of the puckered or pleated band, as suggested by Behrman, given its art-recognized suitability for use as such, in particular, due to the ease of imparting a pleated configuration thereto and the permanence with which the pleats are retained thereby.
Regarding claim 6, Goldstine in view of Behrman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Goldstine does not teach that the decorative part is composed of a textile material, and Behrman is relied upon to address this feature. Behrman further teaches that any textile materials, including woven, knitted, braided, felted, etc., which are capable of taking a permanent heat-set pleating can be used to form the extensible fabric (col 3, Ln 68-75). The knitted textile material therefore corresponds to the claimed 2D knit material or 3D knit material.
Regarding claim 12, Goldstine in view of Behrman teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. As noted above, Goldstine teaches that the steering wheel cover (10; interior part) may be stretched to place it on a steering wheel, wherein the high degree of stretch causes the cover to hug the steering wheel closely (col 3, Ln 30-39; Fig. 1). The cover therefore forms a stowage space of the vehicle, in which thin items such as important papers or small photographs can be stored in the space between the cover and the steering wheel.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed November 14, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 of the remarks filed November 14, 2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Siegfried and Yamaguchi et al. are withdrawn, and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Behrman and under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Goldstine in view of Behrman are presented in the office action above to address the new combination of limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ragner (US 2015/0041016) teaches a retractable elastic pressure hose (30) comprising an outer cover (36) designed to expand and contract radially and longitudinally, wherein the cover (36) is shaped into a desired pleated pattern then heat pressed to set the pleated shape into the fibers, so that the cover can fold evenly into tightly packed, evenly spaced annular ridges to provide a relatively smooth and even outer surface (Abstract, [0077]).
Itagaki (US 5,251,506) teaches a cover material for a steering wheel of a vehicle comprising a material such as natural leather, synthetic leather, or cloth, which is formed to have pleats (21, 22) along a length thereof to give the appearance of a high quality cover (col 4, Ln 35-68; Fig. 1).
Buchheit (US 2010/0083787) teaches a cover assembly for covering a steering column of a telescoping steering assembly (Abstract). As shown in Fig. 1, when the steering column (14) is not fully extended, the cover (20) is slack and has a wrinkled (i.e., corrugated) appearance [0009].
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785