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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 19, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 through 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson (US 20170088026 A1) in view of Leymann (DE 102023107445 A1).
Patterson discloses a trim cover assembly with elastically deformable fasteners to attach a cover material to a vehicle seat cushion. Patterson teaches a vehicle seat element comprising: a structure (element 40 in figure 1), a padding (element 16 in figure 2A), an interface (elements 44 and 50 in figure 2A) located between the structure and the padding comprising a receiving surface covered at least in part by the padding, and a plurality of fastening elements (element 66 in figure 2A) for fasting the padding to the interface, each fastening element passing through at least part of the padding and the receiving surface of the interface, transversely thereto.
Patterson does not teach the padding comprising a solidified 3D entanglement of continuous thermoplastic fibers arranged irregularly forming loops welded together. Patterson does not teach at least one fastening element being formed of two parts complementary and assembled together. Patterson also does not teach the seat element, when configured to be a backrest, being configured to take various shapes, in particular from an initial position of lumbar lordosis to a final kyphosis position in response to a variable load applied by the back of the occupant of the seat.
Claim 1 - Leymann discloses a vehicle seat having upholstery. Leymann teaches, in the abstract, the upholstery as being a three-dimensional network structure with randomly bound meshes of one or more continuous linear thermoplastic structures. Leymann also teaches in the abstract the linear structures being welded together at intersection points. Leymann teaches, in paragraph 20 of the description, the fibers can be connected to one another by twisting or swirling, creating loops.
Patterson discloses, in paragraph [0033], polyurethane foam as a potential composition for the padding of the of the seat. Leymann describes, in paragraph 5 of the description, the disadvantages of using polyurethane foam as a seat padding composition. These disadvantages include poor recyclability and time-consuming production time. Leymann explains, in the following paragraph, the use of the disclosed three-dimension fiber networks as a solution to the disadvantages of the polyurethane foam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the three-dimensional fiber networks taught by Leymann in place of the polyurethane foam for the padding.
Claims 2 and 3 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches more than one fastening elements (element 66) being in contact with the padding (element 16).
Claim 4 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches each fastening element (element 66) passing through the padding (element 16) throughout its thickness.
Claims 5 and 6 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches the fastening elements (element 66) passing through openings in both the padding (element 16) and the interface (elements 44 and 50).
Claim 7 – Patterson, in paragraph [0044], teaches utilizing four fasteners. While Patterson does not disclose dimensions of the vehicle seat, it is obvious that standard dimensions of 0.5334 m wide and 0.4064 m deep would apply and, therefore, the taught number of fasteners falls within the range of 2.59 and 25.92 fasteners per 0.216 𝑚2, which is equal to a range of 12 and 120 fasteners per 𝑚2. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the number of fastening elements to be between 12 and 120 fasteners per 𝑚2 of the padding.
Claim 8 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches at least one fastening element (element 66) is made of a single piece.
Claim 9 – Leymann, disclosed above, teaches, in paragraph 12 of the description, a clamping device as being the fastening means, which consists of at least two parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patterson to use a two-piece fastener rather than a single piece fastener to allow for easier and quicker assembly.
Claim 10 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches the padding’s (element 16) inner surface being in contact with the receiving surface of the interface (elements 44 and 50), and the opposite surface of the padding (element 16) being free to be in contact with a user.
Claim 11 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches a seat cushion (element 16), which is at least one of a seat backrest, an armrest, a seat cushion, a headrest, a part thereof and a set of all or part thereof.
Claim 12 – Leymann, disclosed above, recites, in paragraph 11 of the description, the definition of upholstery as flexible, elastic bodies connected to a seat with the purpose of cushioning excess force on various parts of the body, such as the back. This is a well-known definition of upholstery, and seat cushions in general, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cushion to take various shapes of various users, supporting positions of lumbar lordosis and kyphosis positions in response to a variable load applied by the back of the occupant of the seat.
Claim 13 – Patterson, in figures 2A and 2B, teaches the padding (element 16) comprising three distinct padding elements (element 48 on either side of element 46), connected or not together, each covering part of the receiving surface of the interface (elements 44 and 50), at different locations thereof.
Claim 14 – Patterson, in figure 2A, teaches the padding (element 16) comprising a cap (element 60) covering the 3D entanglement, the cap attaching to the side of the interface (elements 44 and 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Patterson does not disclose an interface located between the structure and the padding. Applicant further states, in the second paragraph on page 10, that elements 44 and 50 of Patterson’s disclosure are regions of the seat frame, element 40, and that there is not a separate element located between the structure and the padding, and they are not described as having a receiving surface that is covered by the padding.
In response, it can be seen when comparing figure 1 of Patterson to figures 2A and 2B of Patterson that “the interface”, elements 44 and 50 of figures 2A and 2B, are different from “the structure”, element 40 in figure 1. The receiving surface of the interface that is covered by the pad is the upper surface of the interface, which in Patterson’s disclosure, is covered by the pad.
Applicant also states in the paragraph on page 9 that Patterson does not disclose a plurality of fastening elements for fastening the padding to the interface, each fastening element passing through at least a part of the padding and the receiving surface of the interface. Applicant states in the third paragraph of page 10 that Patterson’s trim fasteners 66 are explicitly provided to fasten the trim cover 24 to the cushion 16 and/or the frame 40, not to fasten the padding to any interface. Applicant further states that the fasteners are between the cover and the cushion/frame and that they do not pass through the padding and through an intermediate interface’s receiving surface to secure the padding to the interface.
However, it can be seen in figures 2A and 2B of Patterson’s disclosure that the fasteners, element 66, pass through the trim cover, through the padding, and through the upper surface, or receiving surface, of the interface, before latching to the opposite side of the interface, thereby securing not only the trim cover to the padding, but the padding to the interface. Further, Patterson discloses, in paragraph [0037], “Trim fastener 66 extends between the cushion 16 in an opening 42 formed in the cushion 16 or a separation between adjacent cushions”, thereby teaching the fasteners passing through the padding.
On pages 9-12, Applicant argues that Patterson does not disclose “…a solidified 3D entanglement of continuous thermoplastic fibers…”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually regarding the composition of the padding, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference to Leymann is used in the rejection to show the teaching of the specific claimed material of the padding.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph on page 13 that Leymann teaches away from introducing foreign fasteners into the padding because wires and clips, and staples per Leymann, prevent the upholstery and seat from being recycled. Applicant further states that adding Patterson-type elastic fasteners and metallic clips into the body of the 3D network would have been discouraged by Leymann.
In response, the examiner asserts that modifying the disclosure of Patterson with the padding composition of Leymann would not be discouraged by Leymann. Patterson discloses an elastically deformable fastener. Patterson’s fasteners do not teach away from the recyclability of the seat, and would therefore not be discouraged by Leymann.
For the reasons explained in the examiner’s response to arguments, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for claim 1. Furthermore, being that claims 2-14 depend on claim 1, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for claims 2-14 as well.
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 TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636