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 6/21/2024, SIX on 9/6/2024, 10/9/2024, FIVE on 12/20/2024, 1/10/2025 and 8/11/2025 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 1-14, 16 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 1 recites the phrase “each member of the set of filaments” in lines 3-4. It is unclear how the “set of filaments” has members. It appears that Applicant intended to describe that each filament of the set of filaments is looped and bonded to at least one other filament of the set of filaments. Clarification if required. Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “the first slot” in lines 2-3. This phrase lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In the interest of compact prosecution the Examiner has assumed that “the first slot” referencing simply “the slot.” Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites “the fasteners” in line 4. Plural fasteners lacks sufficient antecedent basis. 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 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 (unlalbled0 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 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).
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) 1-9, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perske et al. (6,568,761) in view of Webster et al. (US 2023/0173964).
With respect to claim 1, Perske discloses an assembly comprising: a member (4) having a first surface (i.e. bottom surface); a carrier board (3) defining a second surface (i.e. top surface of the carrier board (3)) adjacent to the first surface; and a fastener (6) comprising a retainer portion (11) disposed in the member (4) and a protruding portion (7) protruding from the retainer portion (11) through the first surface of the member and through the second surface of the carrier board such that the protrusion portion cooperates with the carrier board to secure the member adjacent the carrier board. Perske et al. does not disclose a mesh member “comprising a set of filaments of thermoplastic material.”
Webster et al. teaches a cushion element (14) comprising a set of filaments (22)(22)(22) of thermoplastic material having trim clips “attached to a stranded-mesh material by any other means effective to create a secure attachment.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the hard (POSITA) to replace the member (4) disclosed by Perske et al. with a member formed of the stranded-mesh material as taught by Webster et al., since such a material is known to facilitate attachment of trim clips and be lighter in weight than injection molded polymeric foams (see paragraph [0003]).
With respect to claim 2, Perske et al. does not disclose the carrier board as an armrest, but instead as a seat back or seat bottom cushion. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, a seat back and a seat bottom can be used as an armrest. Furthermore, it would require only routine experimentation by a POSITA to apply the cushion structure disclosed by Perske et al., as modified, to any cushioned element in a seating application including an armrest, headrest, leg rest etc. with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claims 3-4, Perske et al., as modified, does not disclose a carrier board with a thickness of at least 3 mm and further of at least 5 mm. The carrier board (3) of Perske et al. is a “sheet metal shell.” Although a thickness (D) of the sheet metal shell of Perske et al. is not disclosed, a POSITA would assume that the shell has a thickness of at least 5 mm when viewed in relation to the thickness of the cushioning element and in light of knowledge of a POSITA. Furthermore, the 5mm threshold does not appear to be critical and any thickness providing sufficient structural support for the cushion and the fastener would appear to function equally as well.
With respect to claim 5, the carrier board (3) defines an aperture (8) sized to receive the fastener (6).
With respect to claim 7, the member is arranged more proximate a trim cover (5) given that the trim cover lies directly on the surface of the member (4) than the carrier board (see Figure 1 and how carrier board (3) is spaced apart for a bottom side of member (4) at least on either side of the recess (12).
With respect to claim 8, the carrier board defines a silhouette chapes and the member defines the same silhouette shape.
With respect to claim 9, the retainer portion is disposed in a “slot” defined by the member. Note: The foam material pad forming the upholstery member is “then placed onto the securing elements 6 secured on the sheet metal shell 3” (column 4, lines 20-21). This placement required a slot to be present or formed during assembly of the two element.
With respect claim 11, the retainer portion (11) comprises a greater cross-sectional area at (26)(27) that the protruding portion (7).
With respect to claim 14, the seat assembly of claim 1 is mounted on a frame (2).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perske et al. (6,568,761) in view of Webster et al. (US 2023/0173964) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Dieckmann et al. (US 2023/0122699). With respect to claim 13, Perske et al. discloses all claimed elements with the exception of a fastener made from the same thermoplastic material as a set of filaments forming a mesh member. Dieckmann teaches a mesh member made from three dimensional fabric comprised of “plastic” filaments (see paragraph [0007]). Fastening device (110) is formed of the same material as the body (100). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to form the body and fasteners, as disclosed by Perske et al., as modified, from the same material, since such minimizing the types of material required for production would simplify the manufacturing process.
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. lower side) of the cushion (4); and coupling the fasteners (6) to a rigid support (3) such that the protruding portion (7) extends through the cushion (4) and the surface portion. 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, further comprising defining the first slot from a second side of the cushion (i.e. from an upper side of the cushion) that is different than the first side (i.e. lower side of the cushion) given that the slot includes a portion for passage of a trim member and the slot has “outlets” at both the top side of the cushion and the bottom 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 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Andre et al. (4,287,657); Hallock et a. (US 2023/0322135); and Coffield (US 2016/0081477).
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/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993