February 14, 2026
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 1-5, 7-18, 22, 25, and 27 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.
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 1-5, 7, 9-14, 18, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens-Poire′ (U.S. Patent No. 10,144,319 B2) in view of Janowski (U.S. Patent No. 8,465,093 B2) and Jackson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,345,866 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
122
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
102
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stevens-Poire′ teach the structure substantially as claimed including a chair cover for covering at least a part of a chair, the chair cover comprising a plurality of panels comprising:
at least one first panel 3, 4 formed of or from a first fabric, and configured to cover at least one a front middle section having a centreline of the at least the part of the chair; and
a plurality of second panels 5,14, 7,11 formed of or from a second fabric different from the first fabric and joined together with the at least one first panel, wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to cover edges front edge sections, side sections and rear edge sections of the at least the part of the chair surrounding the at least one front middle section, wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to be stretched more than the at least one first panel such that the chair cover fits snugly around the edges of the at least the part of the chair, and at least one fastener 6 disposed along an interface between two adjacent abutting panels of the plurality of second panels but does not teach specify that the plurality of second panels are formed of or from a second fabric different from the first fabric or that the plurality of second panels are configured to releasably couple the two adjacent abutting panels.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
212
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Janowski teaches the concept of a chair cover that includes at least one first panel 18 formed of or from a first fabric, and configured to cover at least one a front middle section having a centreline of the at least the part of the chair; at least one first panel 18 formed of or from a first fabric, and configured to cover at least one middle section having a centerline of the at least the part of the chair; and a plurality of second panels 26a formed of or from a second fabric different from the first fabric and joined together with the at least one first panel (see the specification where it reads “the insert panels 18, 22 are often made to be a different type of cloth or different texture, a different color or a decorative pattern as compared to the rest of the seat cover 10.”), wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to cover edges of the at least the part of the chair surrounding the at least one middle section, wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to be stretched more than the at least one first panel such that the chair cover fits snugly around the edges of the at least the part of the chair (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
176
160
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jackson et al. teach the structure of a cover for covering at least a part of a chair, the chair cover comprising a plurality of panels comprising: at least one first panel 14 formed of or from a first fabric, and configured to cover at least one middle section having a centerline of the at least the part of the chair; and a plurality of second panels 16, 34 and 40 formed of or from a second fabric different from the first fabric and joined together with the at least one first panel; wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to cover edges of the at least the part of the chair surrounding the at least one middle section, wherein the plurality of second panels are configured to be stretched more than the at least one first panel such that the chair cover fits snugly around the edges of the at least the part of the chair.
As for Claims 2-3, Jackson et al. teach the first fabric has a first elasticity and the second fabric has a second elasticity, and the first elasticity is less than the second elasticity; wherein the first fabric does not have an elasticity (see the specification at column 3, lines 14-28 where it reads “ Panels 14 and 32 are formed of an inelastic, non-stretchable material. Suitable inelastic materials include those woven or knit from synthetic or natural fibers, and others such as animal hides, e.g., sheepskin or leather. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the inelastic material is a sheepskin. Panels 16, 34 and 40 can be formed of any suitable material, including synthetic and non-synthetic materials, although it is preferred that they have some elasticity. For aesthetic reasons, it is preferable that materials of panels 14 and 32, and panels 16, 34 and 40 are of a similar texture. For example, where surface and forward panels 14 and 32 are formed of sheepskin, rear panels 34 and 40 can be formed of a stretchable synthetic fur material chosen to match the sheepskin in color and texture, thereby giving a pleasing overall appearance to the cover.”).
It would have been obvious and well within he level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair cover, as taught by Stevens-Poire′, to make the first panel from a different material than that of a second panel, as taught by Janowski, and to use detachable fasteners on the plurality of second panels, such as the zippers 34b taught Janowski, since it would result in a seat cover that has removable and replaceable panels which may be interchanged to alter the appearance and functionality of the seat. It would have been obvious and well within he level of ordinary skill in make the first panel , as taught by Stevens-Poire′, so that the first fabric has a first elasticity and the second fabric has a second elasticity, and the first elasticity is less than the second elasticity; wherein the first fabric does not have an elasticity, as taught by Jackson et al. since the characteristics io the different elasticities of the first and second panels would result in a seat cover that would maintain a smooth, custom-fit appearance when the cover is installed on seat.
Janowski teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not specify if the first fabric has a first thickness and the second fabric has a second thickness, and the first thickness is less than the second thickness; wherein the first fabric has a first grammage and the second fabric has a second grammage, and the first grammage is greater than the second grammage..
As for claims 4-5, Janowski does disclose that “the insert panels 18, 22 are often made to be a different type of cloth or different texture, a different color or a decorative pattern as compared to the rest of the seat cover 10.”. It would have been obvious for the insert panels 18, 22 to be selected from a fabric that has a thickness that is less than the second thickness of the panels since the purpose of the invention is for the insert panels 18, 22 to have a different appearance than the rest of the seat cover 10., and more specifically the plurality of second panels.
As for Claims 9-10, Janowski teaches that the at least one of the first fabric and the second fabric displays a design formed during the circular knitting process.
As for Claim 18 Janowski teaches that the chair cover includes a seat base cover for covering a seat base of the chair, wherein the at least one first panel comprises a top seat base panel configured to cover a middle section having a centerline of the seat base of the chair.
19-21.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens-Poire′ (U.S. Patent No. 10,144,319 B2) in view of Janowski (U.S. Patent No. 8,465,093 B2) and Jackson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,345,866 B1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of English (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,549)..
Stevens-Poire′ in view of Janowski and Jackson et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether the front backrest panel comprises at least one loop configured to be pulled such that the front backrest panel is straightened.
PNG
media_image6.png
142
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, English teaches a chair cover where the front backrest panel comprises at least one loop 22 configured to be pulled such that the front backrest panel is straightened. It would have been obvious to include the loops, as taught by English, since the loops would hold the seat cover to the seat so that it is not inadvertently removed by movement of the person sitting on the seat.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens-Poire′ (U.S. Patent No. 10,144,319 B2) in view of Janowski (U.S. Patent No. 8,465,093 B2) and Jackson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,345,866 B1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kenny(U.S. Patent No. 7,686,392 B2).
Stevens-Poire′ in view of Janowski and Jackson et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether the at least one of the first and second rear wing backrest panels comprises a hole, to allow a protruding member of the backrest of the chair to be penetrated therethrough.
PNG
media_image7.png
166
104
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Kenny teaches a chair cover the at least one of the first and second rear wing backrest panels comprises a hole 1, to allow a protruding member of the backrest of the chair to be penetrated therethrough, wherein the at least one of the first and second rear wing backrest panels further comprises a ring covering an edge of the hole, to prevent the at least one of the first and second rear wing backrest panels from being overstretched when the protruding member is penetrated through the hole (see the specification where it describes that the hole 1 is “elastic lined”). It would have been obvious to include a hole in the chair cover, as taught by Kenny since it would not obstruct the use of any knobs or controls placed on the chair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is 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