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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on April 3, 2026 has been considered as to the merits.
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 16-20 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.
Claim 16 recites “the protruding portion” in line 4. The protruding portion lacks sufficient antecedent basis. From a review of the claim language of claim 1, the Examiner assumes Applicant intended to recite - - a protruding portion protruding from the retainer portion - -. Clarification is required.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Perske et al. (6,568,761). Perske et al. discloses a fastener assembly (6) comprising: a retainer portion (11) to be disposed in a cushion body (4) and a protruding portion (7) protruding from the retainer portion (11), the protruding portion (7) shaped and sized to extend from a slot (unlabeled) in the cushion body (4) through a first side (i.e. bottom side) of the cushion body and to engage a support board (3) such that the protruding portion is secured to the support board and the retainer portion is retained in the cushion body (4) to secure the cushion body (4) to the support board (3), wherein the slot comprises an entry port (unlabeled) on a second side surface (i.e. top surface), for facilitating passage of connector (10), of the cushion body.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perske et al. (6,568,761). With respect to claim 16, Perske et al. discloses a fastener (6) comprising a retainer portion (11) in a slot (formed on a bottom side of member (4)) defined by a cushion (4), the slot being disposed below a surface portion (i.e. lower surface) along a first side (i.e. bottom side) of the cushion (4), wherein the slot comprises an entry port (unlabeled), for the passage of connector (10) on a second side (i.e. top side) of the cushion; and coupling the fastener (6) to a rigid support (3) such that the protruding portion (7) extends through the cushion (4) and the surface portion (lower surface) of the rigid support. The method steps of “disposing” a fastener in a slot and “coupling” the fastener to a rigid support are not explicitly disclosed by Perske et al., however, to form the structure disclosed by Perske et al. the steps of disposing and coupling would be obvious to a POSITA having general knowledge of forming a cushion element with fasteners integrated therein. With respect to claim 20, wherein the second side of the cushion (i.e. the upper side of the cushion) that is different than the first side (i.e. lower side of the cushion). The slot includes a portion for passage of a trim member (10) and the slot has “outlets” at both the upper side of the cushion and the lower side of the cushion.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perske et al. (6,568,761) in view of Kristo et al. (US 2019/0002272 A1). As disclosed above Perske et al., a modified by a POSITA having common knowledge of cushion production methods, discloses all claimed methods with the exception of recycling the cushion and the fasteners. Kristo teaches a cushion body made of fibrous materials. Fasteners mounted therein may also be formed of the same material (see paragraph [0153]). These cushions are made in part for recyclability. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to recycle the cushion and fastener disclosed by Perske et al., as modified, by melting down the product since such a recycling method is known in the art, taught by Kristo et al. and would be helpful to our environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on April 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously recited 35 USC 112 rejections. As noted above, there is an antecedent basis issue remaining in intendent claim 16.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, including allowable subject matter from original claim 9 and portions of original claim 10, has overcome the prior art rejection. Claim 1 and those claims dependent therefrom are indicated as allowable above.
Applicant includes similar subject matter as in claim 1 in independent claims 15 and 16. These claims, however, differ in scope than independent claim 1 and the inclusion of similar limitations do NOT overcome the rejections as set forth above. The Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claims.
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 SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights