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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1-2 and 4-6 under Sato US 9896008 and the rejection of claim 3 under Sato US 9896008 in view of Weaver US 7131170 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sato et al. US 9896008 in view of Lepper et al. US 11078944.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error, lines 4-5 recites “the the anchor portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. US 9896008 in view of Lepper et al. US 11078944.
Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. discloses a seat clip for a seat cover anchor of a seat cover, comprising:
a base (14) configured to be attached to a seat cushion (112); and
a pair of extension arms (50) extending upwardly from the upper surface of the base and disposed to face each other with a space therebetween, each extension arm having an upper end away from the base,
a pair of anchor hooks (52) formed at the respective upper ends of the pair of extension arms to extend inwardly from the upper ends of the extension arms so that the pair of anchor hooks is configured to anchor therebetween the seat cover anchor (118) of the seat cover, and
a pair of support arms (54) formed at the respective upper ends of the pair of extension arms to extend outwardly from the extension arms at an angle towards the base (Sato, Fig 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
574
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sato does not disclose wherein support ribs, each being arranged between each of the support arm and each of the extension arm to support the support arm, wherein each of the support ribs is separated from the base.
Lepper et al. discloses a clip assembly with support ribs (Lepper et al., 134), each being arranged between each of the support arm (Lepper et al., 124) and each of the extension arm (Lepper et al., 110) to support the support arm, wherein each of the support ribs is separated from the base (Lepper et al., Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip of Sato to include the support ribs of Weaver to add rigidity to the support and extension arms.
PNG
media_image2.png
839
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses wherein each of the support arms has a leading end so that a gap (Sato, 60) is formed between the leading end and the base allowing the support arm to make contact with the base (Sato 56A) in an event that the extension arms undergo elastic deformation and move away from each other (Sato Fig 6).
Examiner is interpreting the top faces 56A of Sato to be a part of the base section 14.
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses wherein a bottommost portion of each of the pair of extension arms is separated from of a corresponding support rib of the support ribs (Lepper et al, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses wherein the base includes ports (Sato 36, Fig 10-11) configured to be attached to a seat cushion (Sato para 21, Fig 14-16).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses wherein two anchor clips are arranged on the base to be spaced apart from each other so that the extension arms in one pair is aligned in a longitudinal direction with the extension arms in another pair, the base having a notch (Sato 16B) on either side of a center of the base between the two anchor portions to allow ends of the seat clip to flex in opposite directions (Sato Fig 10-11).
Regarding Claim 6, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses a plurality of the seat clips arranged parallel to each other and connected together at side portions thereof, the plurality of seat clips having a plurality of bridge portions provided between adjacent clips (Sato Fig 10-11).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. in view of Lepper et al. discloses wherein an under surface of each of the pair of supports arms defines a concave surface, and a corresponding support rib of the support ribs contacts the concave surface for a corresponding support arm of the pair of support arms.
Sato et al in view of Lepper et al. lacks specifically disclosing the under surface of the support arms define a concave surface, however changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the shape of the under surface of the support arms. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the under surface of each support arm to be concave an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
PNG
media_image3.png
362
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677