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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species B in the reply filed on 3 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seat cover in the groove must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: for clarity, a comma should be inserted following "rib" in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 11 recite the limitation "the main support portion" in lines 2-3 and line 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazaoka et al. (US Patent Number 4711497).
Regarding claim 1, Kazaoka discloses a panel (16 or 60) for a seat, comprising: a retention portion (at 30) comprising a recessed seat cover groove (see at least Figures 5 and 7 showing such a groove at 30), wherein said groove has at least one tooth adapted to selectively retain a seat cover in the groove (while the downwardly extending member would be viewed as such, 32 would also meet this limitation); a plurality of recessed air flow channels (adjacent 48, 50, 66, 68, etc., all of which provide open recesses capable of allowing air flow); and a rear bolster (at 52 or 66a, 66b) comprising a leading wall (forward-most portions), a connecting wall (highest portions, directly above 56) and a trailing wall (rear-most portions), wherein the leading wall has a first clamp portion and the trailing wall has a second clamp portion, the clamp portions adapted to selectively receive a frame connection member therein (portions of both the leading and trailing walls clamp member 56 or 69a in this manner).
Regarding claim 2, Kazaoka further discloses the retention portion, the air flow channels and the rear bolster are one-piece, unitary and integrally formed (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 5, Kazaoka further discloses the first clamp portion and the second clamp portion have at least partially complementary shapes to the frame connection member (they are generally matched surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Kazaoka further discloses the leading wall, the connecting wall and the trailing wall have a larger radius measured from said frame connection member than a radius between the frame connection member and the first and second clamp portions (i.e. a middle thickness or upper/outer portion of the walls has a larger radius than the inner, frame connection member-contacting clamp portions).
Regarding claim 9, Kazaoka further discloses the plurality of air flow channels are formed in part from walls extending downwardly from an upper surface of the main support portion (the vertical wall portions for instance would meet this limitation at least as best understood).
Regarding claim 10, Kazaoka further discloses the plurality of air flow channels comprise a central portion from which at least one arm is in fluid communication (the design has channels connecting in this manner; see at least Figures 4 and 6).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazaoka.
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 12, Kazaoka discloses a panel as explained above including what would appear to be a general U-shaped cross section and multiple air flow channel arms, but may not clearly disclose the shapes, positions, and angles as claimed. Changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art however, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangements as claimed (by reshaping and/or repositioning the groove and/or rearranging air channels) based on normal variation to improve strength, manufacture, or comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 17, Kazaoka discloses a panel as explained above including the panel made of plastic (at least 16 is described as such), but may not explicitly disclose a thermoplastic material. Such are old and well-known and material selection is a routine design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the material as claimed based on normal variation to improve strength, manufacture, or comfort for various users.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazaoka in view of Dry et al. (US Patent Number 8960791).
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 16, Kazaoka discloses a panel as explained above but does not disclose specifics of the seat cover groove. Dry discloses a related device including a seat cover groove having a plurality of pairs of opposed teeth (at 78, 96, etc.) adapted to retain a seat cover in the seat cover groove, wherein the teeth are adapted to elastically flex in a first direction for an attachment member to be located between them and then the teeth are adapted to flex in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to selectively retain the attachment member within the seat cover groove (at least 78 are described as flexing in this manner), wherein the teeth extend from a bottom of the groove (see figures), and wherein the teeth are located at angles with respect to the bottom of the groove (again, see figures; note that various portions could be defined as the bottom and any angle would appear to meet this limitation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide groove details as taught by Dry in Kazaoka’s device because this could improve assembly, performance, or comfort for various users.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Kazaoka discloses a panel as explained above but does not disclose specifics of the connecting wall or seat cover groove. Dry discloses a related device including a member (116 for instance) extending inwardly from a connecting wall having at least a partially complementary shape to a connection member as well as apertures defined between walls and ribs (at least at 100 for instance). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wall and groove details as taught by Dry in Kazaoka’s device because this could improve assembly, performance, or comfort for various users. Note that while the combination is viewed as providing the claimed arrangement based on the arrangement of the reference devices, even if this were not clear, duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangements as claimed based on normal variation to improve strength, manufacture, or comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 13, Kazaoka discloses a panel as explained above but does not disclose specifics of the cushion or cover. Dry discloses a related device including a fluid permeable cushioning material located over a panel, wherein a seat cover is located over the cushioning material, wherein the seat cover has selected gas permeable areas over the air flow channels and other areas of non-permeability (see the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 describing fluid permeable cushioning and cover as claimed; note that at the very least the perforations of the cover would provide permeability while non-perforated areas would be non-permeable). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide cushion and cover details as taught by Dry in Kazaoka’s device because this could improve support, performance, or comfort for various users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it provides examples of related seating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636