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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what “there portion interposed” and “the another portion” are in the context of the specification and figures.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Atsushi Kageyama et al. U.S Patent Publication 2016/0375807 A1 (Kageyama) in view of Mary V. Grover U.S. Patent 8,689,711 B1 (Grover).
Regarding claim 1, Kageyama discloses a seat cover which is a skin material of a seat cushion or seatback, the seat cushion or seatback having a first seam allowance and a second seam (area of Element 40 sewn together) allowance sewn together with a first seam line (Element 38), the first seam allowance being provided at a first end side of a first cover piece, the second seam allowance being placed at a second end side of a second cover piece. Kageyama does not directly disclose a first and second design surface on the first and second cover pieces wherein the design having a plurality of stitches crosses the first seam line. Grover discloses first and second design surfaces on first and second cover pieces wherein a seam line intersects with the design stitches (Figure 2 Element 140 for two pieces that are joined at a seam Column 7 Line 1-38).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kageyama as taught by Grover to include Grover’s design stitching that intersects with the seam line. Such a modification is a design modification provided as a decorative technique of stitching surfaces to be joined with other pieces of material.
Regarding claim 2, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the first seam allowance and the second seam allowance are sewn together, and then brought into contact with a rear side of the second cover piece and sewn to the second cover piece with a second seam line, the rear side being not a design surface (Figure 3 Element 28a 30a with seam element 40, Kageyama; design surface are stitches selectively placed for the aesthetics of the design Grove).
Regarding claim 3, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein each length of the plurality of stitches extending from the first seam line are the same (Figure 1-5, seams, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 4, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover comprising the plurality of stitches (Element 38 and 40). Kageyama in view of Grove does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of stitches are constituted using threads of a plurality of colors. Color modification is common and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would be obvious to provide stitches of various colors. Such a modification would provide a means to enhance the appearance of the trim cover.
Regarding claim 5, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the plurality of stitches are formed continuously ([0055], stitches are along the same line, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 6, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the second seam allowance is sewn to the second cover piece with a second seam line in a state where the second seam allowance is sewn to the first seam allowance and in contact with a rear side of the second cover piece, the rear side being not a design surface (Element 40), Kageyama; design surface are stitches selectively placed for the aesthetics of the design Grove.
Regarding claim 7, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the second cover piece is a top cover configured to cover a seating surface ([0039]), Kageyama).
Regarding claim 8, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the first seam allowance and the second seam allowance are sewn together and form an integrated seam allowance, and the integrated seam allowance are sewn to the second cover piece with a second seam line (Figure 3 Element 38 and 40, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 9, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the plurality of stitches is formed at the first end side on the design surface (Figure 3, Kageyama in view of design stitch positioning of Groove).
Regarding claim 10, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein end portions of the stitches at the first end side are disposed between the first seam line and the second seam line (Figure 3, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 11, Kageyama in view of Grove discloses the seat cover wherein the plurality of stitches include a portion interposed between the first cove piece and the second cover piece (Figure 3 Element 38, Kageyama), and another portion exposed from the first cover piece and the second cover piece (Element 40, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 12, Kageyama in view of Grove disclose the seat cover wherein the portion interposed between the first cover and second cover and the another portion are directly joined to each other (Element 38 and 40, Kageyama).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
The design surface comprising stitches that intersect with the seam stitch is taught in Grove.
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
Prosecution Insights