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 § 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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daniel W. Booth et al. U.S. Patent 7,837,263 B2 (Booth).
Regarding claim 10, Booth discloses an apparatus, comprising: a trim cover (Figure 4 Element 39); a backing stacked upon and secured to the trim cover (Element 48, 46); an attachment layer stacked upon and secured to the backing (Element 52); at least one tie down attached to the attachment layer (Element 80), which is further attached to the backing layer attached to the trim cover, wherein the backing layer minimizes visible deformation to the trim cover when the at least one tie down is under tension (Figure 1-4).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Booth discloses the apparatus wherein the backing comprises a different material than the material of the trim cover and the attachment layer(Column 2 Lines 54-Column 3 Line 52).
Regarding claim 14, Booth discloses a seat assembly (Figure 1), comprising a frame; a cushion supported by the frame (Column 1 Liens 11-25); a second retainer (Element 92 Figure 4); and the apparatus being mounted over the cushion (Figure 4 cushion Element 42B).
Regarding claim 15, Booth discloses the apparatus wherein the retainer comprises a different material than the material of the attachment layer (Figure 4 Column 2 Line 54-Column 3 Line 52).
Regarding claim 16, Booth discloses a method, comprising: attaching at least one tie down to a first layer (Figure 4 Element 80); attachment a retainer to the at least one tie down (Element 92); stacking a second layer upon the first layer (Element 52 stacked with Element 46, 48); securing the second layer to the first layer that is engaged to the tie down which is further engaged to the retainer (Column 2 Line 54-Column 3 Line 52); stacking a set trim cover upon the second layer (Element 39); and securing the seat trim cover to the second layer to form a multi-layer trim cover assembly (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Booth discloses the method wherein the third layer comprises a different material than the material of the first layer (Figure 4 Element 39 and 52 are different material).
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) 1-3, 7, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthew M. Bednarski U.S. Patent 7,287,305 B2 (Bednarski) in view of Daniel W. Booth et al. U.S. Patent 7,837,263 B2 (Booth).
Regarding claim 1, Bednarski discloses an assembly, comprising: a first layer (Element 28) sized to be displaced over a seat component; a tie down connected to the first layer to extend at least partially along or at least partially through a cushion (Figure 1-3 Element 30) a retainer connected to the tie down, sized to retain the tie down and the first layer to the seat component (Element 16). Bednarski does not directly disclose a second layer and third layer. Booth discloses an assembly wherein a layer of material (cover Element 26 and 34) comprising a first layer (Element 52) a second layer stacked upon and secured to the first layer that is engaged to the tie down (Figure 4 Element 52 attached to Element 80) which is further engaged to the retainer, and a third layer stacked upon and secured to the second layer (Element 46, 56, 48).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bednarski as taught by Booth to include Booth’s second and third layers. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance the comfort of the contact and support surfaces for the seated user.
Regarding claim 2, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly further comprising a cushion (Element 32, Bednarski), wherein the at least one tie down and the retainer secure the first layer (Figure 5, Bednarski), the second layer, and the third layer to the cushion (modified with layers shown in Figure 2, Booth).
Regarding claim 3, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly wherein the first layer comprises a non-woven material (Column 3 Line 4-12, Bednarski).
Regarding claim 7, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly wherein the third layer comprises a trim cover (Element 39, Booth).
Regarding claim 23, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly wherein the tie down is secured to the retainer underneath or adjacent to a B surface of the cushion (Figure 5 Element 16 under Element 32, Bednarski).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthew M. Bednarski U.S. Patent 7,287,305 B2 (Bednarski) in view of Daniel W. Booth et al. U.S. Patent 7,837,263 B2 (Booth).
in view of Ralf Hobl et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0049948 A1 (Hobl).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 8, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly disclosing the second layer (Element 52, Booth), wherein the third layer comprises a textile or leather material (Column 3 Line 4-12, Bednarski). Bednarski in view of Booth does not directly disclose the second layer to comprise foam material. Hobl discloses an assembly comprising a cover made of first, second, third layers, wherein the second layer comprises a foam material (([0024], Hobl); Hobl further disclose another layer made of fleece material.
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bednarski in view of the Booth as taught by Hobl to include Hobl’s second layer foam and fleece material. Material modification is well known in the art. Such a modification would provide a means to improve the support and comfort of the seat.
Regarding claim 9, Bednarski in view of Booth discloses the assembly discloses wherein the second layer is attached to the first layer (Booth). Bednarski in view of Booth does not directly disclose the attachment to be a lamination that is adhesive free thermal lamination. Hobl discloses a plurality of layers of a vehicle seat cover wherein the layers are laminated via an adhesive free thermal lamination ([0021]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bednarski in view Booth as taught by Hobl to include Hobl’s means of attaching the layers together. Such a modification would provide a means to securely adhere the plurality of layers that make up the vehicle seat support and cover assembly.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel W. Booth et al. U.S. Patent 7,837,263 B2 (Booth) in view of Ralf Hobl et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0049948 A1 (Hobl).
Regarding claim 13, Booth discloses the assembly discloses wherein the backing is secured to the attachment layer (Figure 4). Booth does not directly disclose the attachment to use heat. Hobl discloses a plurality of layers of a vehicle seat cover wherein the layers are secured to one another by heat ([0021]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Booth as taught by Hobl to include Hobl’s means of attaching the layers together. Such a modification would provide a means to securely adhere the plurality of layers that make up the vehicle seat support and cover assembly.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel W. Booth et al. U.S. Patent 7,837,263 B2 (Booth) in view of Matthew M. Bednarski U.S. Patent 7,287,305 B2 (Bednarski).
Regarding claims 17-19, Booth discloses the method comprising the first, second, and third layer (Figure 4). Booth does not directly disclose the first layer to be non-woven material, the second layer to be foam material or woven fleece material. Bednarski discloses the assembly wherein the first layer comprises a non-woven material (Column 3 Line 4-12, Bednarski). Furthermore, material modification is common and well known in the art. Such a modification would provide a means to improve the support and comfort of the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-20, and 23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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 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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636