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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hodgdon teaches a seating structure (Shown in Fig. 2) comprising: a frame (Fig. 3 elements 26 and 30) defining an opening, a portion of the frame having a curved configuration (Curve shown in Fig. 2); a suspension material extending across the opening (Fig. 3 element 42); and a molded strip (Fig. 3 element 40) encapsulating an edge of the suspension material and coupled to the frame (Shown in Fig. 3).
Hodgdon fails to explicitly teach the molded strip defining a plurality of windows, wherein a portion of the suspension material is exposed through at least some of the plurality of windows, wherein a portion of the molded strip includes a plurality of fingers separated by a plurality of slits, and wherein the plurality of fingers wrap around the portion of the frame having the curved configuration.
However, Levey teaches the molded strip defining a plurality of windows (Windows shown in Fig. 2), wherein a portion of the suspension material is exposed through at least some of the plurality of windows (Fig. 2 shows fabric through the windows of element 32) wherein a portion of the molded strip includes a plurality of fingers separated by a plurality of slits, and wherein the plurality of fingers wrap around the portion of the frame having the curved configuration (Fig. 2 shows element 32 having vertical segments that the examiner considered fingers and are separated by openings considered to be slits).
Hodgdon and Levey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strip of Hodgdon to have the windows as disclosed by Levey. Doing so would provide a secure connection of the fabric to the frame while allowing the manufacturer to visibly see that the fabric is in the correct spot for before coupling.
Regarding Claim 2, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Hodgdon further discloses the molded strip has a generally C-shaped cross-section (Fig. 3 element 40 is C-shaped).
Regarding Claim 3, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Hodgdon further discloses the generally C-shaped cross-section is defined by a first leg (Fig. 3 upper horizontal section of element 40), a second leg (Fig. 3 lower horizontal element of element 40) spaced apart from the first leg, and an intermediate leg extending between and connecting the first and second legs (Fig. 3 vertical section of element 40).
Levey further discloses the plurality of windows is formed in the first leg (Windows shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 3.
Hodgdon further discloses the second leg is received in a slot of the frame (Fig. 3 lower horizontal section of element 40 shown to be received in slot between element 26 and 30).
Regarding Claim 5, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Levey further discloses the plurality of windows is arranged in a row along a length of the molded strip (Windows shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Levey further discloses each window has a rectangular shape (Windows shown in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1) and further in view of Coffield (US 6511562 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Hodgdon and Levey fail to explicitly teach the suspension material includes a monofilament.
However, Coffield teaches the suspension material includes a monofilament (Fig. 1B element 18; “The term "load bearing fabric" is commonly used to refer to a class of high strength, highly durable textiles that are typically woven from elastomeric monofilaments” Col. 1 lines 9-12).
Hodgdon, Levey and Coffield are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fabric of Hodgdon in view of Levey to be made of a monofilament material as disclosed by Coffield. Doing so would provide a high strength fabric that is commonly used in load bearing fabrics, such as for a chair.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hodgdon teaches a suspension assembly for a seating structure (Fig. 3 element 26 and 30), the suspension assembly comprising: a suspension material (Fig. 3 element 42) configured to extend across an opening defined by the seating structure (Shown in Fig. 3); and a strip (Fig. 3 element 40) molded to an edge of the suspension material and configured to be coupled to a portion of the seating structure (Shown in Fig. 3).
Hodgdon fails to explicitly teach the strip defining a plurality of windows, the strip including a plurality of ribs extending outwardly from a surface of the strip and arranged between the plurality of windows, wherein a portion of the suspension material is exposed through at least some of the plurality of windows.
However, Levey teaches the strip defining a plurality of windows (Windows shown in Fig. 2), the strip including a plurality of ribs extending outwardly from a surface of the strip and arranged between the plurality of windows (Fig. 2 vertical segments of element 32 considered ribs extending outwardly from a surface (inner surface)), wherein a portion of the suspension material is exposed through at least some of the plurality of windows (Fig. 2 shows fabric through the windows of element 32).
Hodgdon and Levey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strip of Hodgdon to have the windows as disclosed by Levey. Doing so would provide a secure connection of the fabric to the frame while allowing the manufacturer to visibly see that the fabric is in the correct spot for before coupling.
Regarding Claim 10, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Hodgdon further discloses the strip has a generally C-shaped cross-section (Fig. 3 element 40), and wherein the C-shaped cross-section is defined by a first leg (Fig. 3 upper horizontal section of element 40), a second leg spaced apart from the first leg (Fig. 3 lower horizontal section of element 40), and an intermediate leg extending between and connecting the first and second legs (Fig. 3 vertical section of element 40).
Regarding Claim 11, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Hodgdon further discloses the strip is formed by a first strip member molded to a first edge of the suspension material (Fig. 2 left section of backrest) and a second strip member molded to a second edge of the suspension material (Fig. 2 right section of backrest) such that the first strip member is spaced apart from the second strip member in a first direction (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Levey further discloses the first and second strip members each include a plurality of fingers, and wherein a space is respectively defined between each finger (Fig. 2 vertical segments of element 32 between each window).
Regarding Claim 13, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Hodgdon further discloses the strip is also formed by a third strip member molded to a third edge of the suspension material (Fig. 2 upper section of backrest) and a fourth strip member molded to a fourth edge of the suspension material (Fig. 2 lower section of backrest) such that the third strip member is spaced apart from the fourth strip member in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the third strip member and the fourth strip member interconnect the first strip member and the second strip member (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Levey further discloses the plurality of windows is arranged in a row along each strip member (Windows shown in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1) and further in view of Coffield (US 6511562 B1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Hodgdon and Levey fail to explicitly teach the suspension material includes a monofilament.
However, Coffield teaches the suspension material includes a monofilament (Fig. 1B element 18; “The term "load bearing fabric" is commonly used to refer to a class of high strength, highly durable textiles that are typically woven from elastomeric monofilaments” Col. 1 lines 9-12).
Hodgdon, Levey and Coffield are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fabric of Hodgdon in view of Levey to be made of a monofilament material as disclosed by Coffield. Doing so would provide a high strength fabric that is commonly used in load bearing fabrics, such as for a chair.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Hodgdon teaches a method of manufacturing a seating structure (Fig. 2), the seating structure including a frame (Fig. 2 element 26) defining an opening (Shown in Fig. 2), the method comprising: providing a suspension material (Fig. 3 element 42); securing the suspension material within a mold assembly by using a plurality of projections formed on a first mold portion to hold the suspension material against a second mold portion (Fig. 3 fabric coupled between elements 30 and 40); molding a strip to an edge of the suspension material (Fig. 3 element 40); and coupling the strip to the frame such that the suspension material extends across the opening of the frame (Shown in Fig. 3).
Hodgdon fails to explicitly teach a portion of the suspension material is exposed through a plurality of windows defined within the strip, the plurality of windows formed where the plurality of projections hold the suspension material against the second mold portion.
However, Levey teaches a portion of the suspension material is exposed through a plurality of windows defined within the strip (Fig. 2 shows fabric through the windows of element 32), the plurality of windows formed where the plurality of projections hold the suspension material against the second mold portion (Fig. 2 shows the two mold portions coupling the suspension material through the windows of element 32).
Hodgdon and Levey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strip of Hodgdon to have the windows as disclosed by Levey. Doing so would provide a secure connection of the fabric to the frame while allowing the manufacturer to visibly see that the fabric is in the correct spot for before coupling.
Regarding Claim 20, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 16.
Levey further discloses the strip is a first strip member defining a first plurality of windows and the edge is a first edge (Fig. 1 element 32), and further comprising molding a second strip member to a second edge of the suspension material (Fig. 1 element 52) such that the suspension material is exposed through a second plurality of windows defined within the second strip member (Windows shown in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgdon (US 20020105220 A1) in view of Levey et al. (US 20040121119 A1) and further in view of Schmitz et al. (US 11510502 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Hodgdon and Levey teach the limitations set forth in Claim 16.
Hodgdon further discloses the strip (Fig. 3 element 40) has a generally C-shaped cross-section defined by a first leg (Fig. 3 upper horizontal section of element 40), a second leg (Fig. 3 lower horizontal section of element 40), and an intermediate leg (Fig. 3 vertical section of element 40).
Hodgdon and Levey fail to explicitly teach molding the strip to the edge of the suspension material includes injecting a plastic material into a mold assembly to form the strip.
However, Schmitz teaches molding the strip to the edge of the suspension material includes injecting a plastic material into a mold assembly to form the strip (“Liquefied carrier material is introduced into the cavity 668 through a passageway 688 defined in the first mold component 660, for example, by injection molding. The liquefied carrier material is allowed to harden around the edge 356A, 356B of the suspension material 34A, 34B” Col. 13 lines 42-47).
Hodgdon, Levey and Schmitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of supporting fabric structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strip of Hodgdon in view of Levey to be injection molded as disclosed by Schmitz. Doing so would provide a secure connection between the suspension material and the strip. Injection molding is known in the art to form precise connection structures and is not considered novel.
Regarding Claim 18, Hodgdon, Levey and Schmitz teach the limitations set forth in Claim 17.
Hodgdon further discloses coupling the strip to the frame includes inserting the second leg into a slot of the frame (Fig. 3 lower horizontal section of element 40 shown to be received in slot between element 26 and 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant states that the cited reference Levey et al. does not disclose fingers separated by slits in the molded strip. The examiner respectfully disagrees as there is no further definition of fingers. The examiner considers the vertical segments of element 32 in Fig. 3 to be fingers as they are elongated structures separated by openings. Regarding claim 9, Applicant states that Levey et al. does not disclose ribs extending outwardly from a surface of the strip. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the intended surface is not defined, and the vertical segments of element 32 extend outwardly from the inner surface. Regarding claim 16, Applicant states that Hodgdon does not disclose the suspension material is secured between a first mold portion and a second mold portion. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the cited mold portions are shown in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights