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 § 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, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettinga (EP0805064) in view of Brandoli (FR2486922). The reference to Hettinga teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including seat assembly (fig 3) comprising: a frame (12) comprising an aperture; a cushion comprising a mesh member (14), the mesh member comprising a set of filaments of polymeric material (at least figs 4a, 4b, 4c), wherein at least two members of the set of filaments are looped and bonded to each other, and wherein the cushion is disposed on the frame (at least fig 3) the only difference being that the cushion is not fastened to the frame through an aperture in the frame by a fastener and a trim cover is not fastened by the fastener and is positioned only on one side. However, the reference to Brandoli (at least figs 1, 2, 5, 6) teaches the use of providing a fastening arrangement (1) that extends through the cushion (i) and frame (o, m) and trim cover (r, 2) attached to only at one side to the fastener to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the structure of Hettinga with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a fastening arrangement that extends through the cushion (i) and frame (o, m) and trim cover attached to the frame with a trim on one side as taught by Brandoli since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The method would have been obvious in view of the structures. With regard to claims 8, 9 note the references teach a fastener that as the shape of the flanges of the attachment structures in both references (at least fig 13 of Hettinga and fig 6 of Brandoli) teach structure on both sides of the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 APR 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note the remarks in the rejections 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 JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights