November 21, 2025
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/07/2025. These drawings are approved.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plant et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,291,310 B2) in view of Norman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,913,540 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Plant et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a chair seat comprising:
a frame 48 having a groove 60 on an outer side wall of the frame 48, the groove substantially extending around the frame;
at least one edging strip 64 disposed in the groove the edging strip having outer surfaces that form an interference fit with inner surfaces of the groove (See column 4, lines 1-3 where it reads “Referring to FIG. 11, the insert 64 has a substantially rectangular cross-section, and is dimensioned to form an interference fit with the groove 60.”), thereby constraining the hem and drawstring of the cover 49 and hold it holding the cover taut but does not teach that the cover has a drawstring incorporated in a hem which substantially extends around the cover, the hem and drawstring being disposed in the groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
192
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Noman et al. teach the concept of a cover 58 that has a drawstring 70 incorporated in a hem 68 which substantially extends around the cover, the hem and drawstring being capable of being disposed in a groove. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat, as taught by Plant et al., to include a cover that has a drawstring incorporated in a hem which substantially extends around the cover, the hem and drawstring being capable of being disposed in a groove, as taught by Norman et al., since it would allow the cover to be tautly secure to the frame before the edging strip is inserted in the grove 60.
As for claim 2, Plant et al. teach that the at least one edging strip has barbs 75 by way of clip 61.
As for claim 4, Plant et al. teach that a back cap 65 is provided to cover the cleat.
Claims 3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,527,335 B2) in view of Law (U.S. Patent No. 7,073,693 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanley (U.S. Patent No. 5,806,925).
Eberlein et al. in view of Law teach the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not a cleat is provided to hold drawstring under tension.
PNG
media_image3.png
248
190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Hanley teaches a seat cover that is secured to a seat by a drawstring 22 in which a cleat 30 is provided to hold drawstring under tension and also allow the drawstring to be secured in the cleat and the back cap 65 can cover the cleat.. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the chair seat, as taught by Eberlein et al. in view of Law, to include a cleat 30 on the drawstring to hold the drawstring under tension, as taught by Hanley, since drawstring cleats, toggles, fasteners, etc. are well known and it would prevent the drawstring of the seat cover from losing tension, thus preventing the seat cover from detaching from the seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10-11, and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights