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
Newly submitted claim 33 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claim is drawn to a combination restrictable from the originally claimed subcombination and related method.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 33 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 21-25 and 34 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 21-25 and 34 recite the limitation "the nonwoven element or one of the two nonwoven elements" and depend from claim 19. Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and recites “wherein two nonwoven elements are provided,” which would typically be interpreted as modifying claim 17’s “at least one… nonwoven element.” The language of claims 21-25 however, appears to suggest that these are different (i.e. the “at least one” element of claim 17 plus an additional other two elements of claim 19). The claims are accordingly deemed indefinite (but have been treated as merely requiring at least two elements as per claim 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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) 17, 20, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyata et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0314714).
Regarding claim 17, Miyata discloses a seat component, comprising: a seat structure (4 for instance) and a molded body, wherein the molded body comprises at least one thermally solidified and three-dimensionally formed nonwoven element (10; see at least paragraph 32 describing nonwoven thermally fused fibers for instance) that is back-molded with a foam material or a foamable material (at P for instance), wherein the nonwoven element is an outer surface of the seat component (it would at least form an outer surface of the component defined by elements 4, 10, and P for instance; note that it could also be viewed as “an outer surface” based on its facing arrangement), wherein the seat structure is arranged in a cavity of the at least one nonwoven element and is foamed in by the foam material or the foamable material (the shape of the element is viewed as forming a cavity on the back side where the structure is foamed in), wherein the seat component is a backrest or a seat part of a seat (it would at least for part of a backrest). While Miyata is thus viewed as disclosing a component as claimed, the outer surface may not be as Applicant intends. Even in this case however, duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art 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 elements arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve fit, support, or comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 20, Miyata further discloses the foam material or the foamable material is connected to the nonwoven element or the nonwoven elements in a form-fitting and/or substance-bonded manner (it is viewed as form-fitting as well as substance-bonded; see figures and at least paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 27, Miyata further discloses a vehicle seat, comprising at least one of the one seat components as claimed in claim 17 (a vehicle seat is disclosed in paragraph 1 for instance, and thus, even if not shown, at least considered inherent in any use of the device).
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21-26, 28-32, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata.
Regarding claim 18, Miyata discloses an arrangement as explained above but may not disclose particular density variations. Changes in material property (including using similar materials with varied properties) are a routine design choice 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 elements with density or strength as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and safety for various users.
Regarding claim 19, Miyata discloses an arrangement as explained above but may not disclose two nonwoven elements. Duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art 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 two elements as claimed (providing a mirror-image element on the back for instance) based on normal variation to improve comfort, safety, or performance for various users.
Regarding claim 21, Miyata further discloses the nonwoven element or one of the two nonwoven elements forms a three-dimensional bearing surface (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 22, Miyata further discloses the nonwoven element or at least one of the two nonwoven elements is at least partially made of a plastic fiber material (see at least paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 23, Miyata further discloses the molded body comprises at least one attachment element (2bE for instance) which is arranged above the nonwoven element or above one of the two nonwoven elements and is fixed thereto in a detachable manner (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 24, Miyata further discloses the nonwoven element or the two nonwoven elements is/are partially or completely permeated by the foam material or foamable material (paragraph 26 discloses at least partial permeation for instance).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Miyata discloses an arrangement as explained above including what would appear to be a groove- or slot-shaped recess (adjacent the sewing line S for instance), but this may not be explicitly described. However, changes in shape require only routine skill in the art 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 a recess as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort, safety, or manufacture for various users.
Regarding claim 34, Miyata further discloses the nonwoven element or the two nonwoven elements is/are not permeated by the foam material or foamable material (at least in part; i.e. the bulk of the elements are not permeated).
Regarding claims 28-32 and 35, Miyata discloses and/or renders obvious an arrangement structurally as claimed but may not explicitly describe a method of production. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the product using the method as claimed because the normal production would typically include the steps as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Miyata does not disclose the nonwoven element as an outer surface of the seat component. However, as explained above, Miyata is in fact viewed as disclosing such an arrangement. Further, even in the case that this was not clear, such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of Miyata as explained above.
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 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