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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification and claims call for a retaining element formed of a bent wire which form anchoring regions (at least pg 0077) and such anchoring region for foaming into a padded element (claims 16, 29). However, it cannot be determined how a wire structure is for foaming into a padded element (is the padded element foamed around, through the wire structure?). Clarification and correction are required.
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) 16-30, so far as definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre (1873607) in view of Ramsey (4317591). The reference to Lefevre teaches structure substantially as claimed including a retaining element for a cover retaining assembly of a vehicle seat, wherein the retaining element has a fastening region for a cover fastening element and at least one anchoring region for foaming into a padding element, and wherein the retaining element is in the form of a one-part bent wire or a one-part filiform plastic structure, and wherein the bent wire or the filiform plastic structure is shaped in the anchoring region in such a way that at least one anchoring opening is defined which has at least one concavity directed toward the fastening region (it is noted here, that the anchoring opening at the curved portion at where the arrow indicates a concavity (curvature) as does the curved bent portion opposite of the arrow, that is directed(faces) the fastening region)
PNG
media_image1.png
15
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
15
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
7
6
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
292
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the wire or the plastic structure is shaped such that the anchoring opening is configured as at least one loop, the anchoring opening extends perpendicularly to the fastening region( the anchoring region as pointed out by the arrow is the area that is surrounded by the opening and the arms of the anchoring opening extends perpendicularly from the region), the anchoring opening is divided into two by the concavity, at least two loops, with in each case an associated opening portion, are configured in the anchoring region, two anchoring regions protrude from the fastening region, the element has an H-shape, a butterfly shape, a spectacles shape or a wing shape, the two anchoring regions are formed by longitudinal webs of the H-shape or by wings of the butterfly shape or the wing shape, wherein the anchoring opening has a radially open slot (the opening is a thin opening and therefore a slot), a seat (fig 3) the only difference being that the retaining element is not shown as surrounded by a foam structure, such as a cover and seat. However, the reference to Ramsey teaches the use of providing a retaining structure within a foam structure to provide an attachment structure to be old.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Lefevre with a reasonable expectation of success, to include the retaining structure within a foam, as taught by Ramsey 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, so far as definite. The provision of a plurality of retaining elements and such elements being configured to be entangled and released are matters of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, thereby providing structure as claimed., so far as definite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including retaining structures for seat and covers.
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