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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not end in a period. 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
With Respect to Claim 11
It recites the limitation "the lower edge of the central portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes this to be a typo and to refer to “the lower edge of the upper portion” as that appears to be the intent based upon Examiner’s best understanding of the invention.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #10,144,357 to Abe (Abe). Abe discloses:
With Respect to Claim 11
A seat comprising at least one support element comprising a body (noting disclosed interior frame and cushion pad) and a vehicle seat covering element (4A), the vehicle seat covering element comprising: a central portion comprising an upper edge, an upper portion comprising a lower edge, two side portions arranged on either side of the central portion and integral with the central portion (FIG. 1 shows a rear surface of the cover including the claimed sections all integrally formed), and a pocket portion (6) comprising a first edge and a second edge opposite one another (FIG. 3, noting opposite positions on the top and bottom of the opening), the pocket portion delimiting a storage space (FIG. 3), the first edge of the pocket portion being secured to the upper edge of the central portion and the second edge of the pocket portion being secured to the lower edge of the central portion (FIG. 3), the pocket portion being folded on itself to form two pocket panels (noting disclosure to connect two sides of a substantially rectangular-shaped piece of cloth, and bottom fold shown in FIG. 3), the first edge and the second edge together delimiting an access opening to the storage space (FIG. 3), the upper portion being secured to the side portions on either side of the opening (see, e.g. FIG. 1), wherein the seat covering element covers at least a portion of the body (FIG. 1), wherein the seat covering element extends over a rear face of the body to form a back of a seat back, and wherein the central portion, the upper portion, and the side portions face a rear face of the body (FIG. 1, noting that all are located on the rear of the 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JP H03118043 (‘043), or alternately under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP H03118043 (‘043), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #10,144,357 to Abe (Abe).
With Respect to Claim 11
‘043 discloses (for clarity, this rejection uses the FIG. 4 embodiment but will reference parts of the other drawings where they show details not clearly shown in FIG. 4) a seat comprising at least one support element comprising a body (14) and a vehicle seat covering element (12), the vehicle seat covering element comprising: a central portion (portion of the rear of 12 at and below slit 18) comprising an upper edge (12b, FIGS. 3-4), an upper portion (portion of the rear of 12 at and above the level of slit 18) comprising a lower edge (12a, FIGS. 3-4) , two side portions (portions of the rear of 12 to the left and right of 18, both above and below the level of 18) arranged on either side of the central portion and integral with the central portion (the back of 12 is shown as a single piece with the sides of 12, and/or they are integrally formed as all form the single unit 12), and a pocket portion (16) comprising a first edge (16a) and a second edge (16b) opposite one another (see, e.g. FIGS. 3--4), the pocket portion delimiting a storage space, the first edge (16a) of the pocket portion being secured to the upper edge of the central portion (FIG. 3) and the second edge of the pocket portion being secured to the lower edge of the central portion (FIG. 3, noting 112 2nd paragraph rejection above taking it to be the lower edge of the upper portion), the pocket portion being folded on itself to form two pocket panels (noting fold at the bottom shown in FIG. 3), the first edge and the second edge together delimiting an access opening to the storage space (see, e.g. FIGS. 3-4), the upper portion being secured to the side portions on either side of the opening (they are integrally formed and so inherently secured together and are attached on the left and right of the opening, respectively which are either side of the opening), wherein the seat covering element covers at least a portion of the body, wherein the seat covering element extends over a rear face of the body to form a back of a seat back, and wherein the central portion, the upper portion, and the side portions face a rear face of the body (see FIG. 4 showing the central portion, upper portion, and side portions together forming a rear panel facing the rear face of the body).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that the FIG. 4 structure will have the pocket attached similar to the FIG. 1 and 3 structure, to the degree that it is a different embodiment and may have different structures, it would have been obvious to form that structure with the internal structures disclosed and shown for FIGS. 1 and 3 as a mere selection of an art appropriate internal structure, or alternately in view of the FIG. 4 embodiment to make the pocket of the FIG. 1 embodiment smaller so as to extend across only a central portion of the rear wall of the seat cover (i.e. providing side portions that also face the rear face of the body) as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion (i.e. it merely reduces the size of the pocket so that it does not extend across the entire rear panel of the seat cover) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that FIG. 4 of ‘043 and its disclosure indicate the structure meeting the limitations of the claim as listed above, to the degree that the drawings may not be to scale, Abe discloses forming a similar pocket structure wherein the central portion, the upper portion, and the side portions face a rear face of the body which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this construction.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP H03118043 (‘043) in view of U.S. Patent #10,589,688 to Diaz Paredes (Diaz) and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2009/0134190 to O’Neill (O’Neill).
With Respect to Claim 1
‘043 discloses a vehicle seat covering element (12 and related structure) comprising: a central portion (portion of the rear of 12 at and below the level of slit 18, either only the portion directly below 18 or this in combination with some portion to the left or right of 18) comprising an upper edge (12b, FIGS. 3-4), an upper portion (portion of the rear of 12 at and above the level of slit 18) comprising a lower edge (12a, FIGS. 3-4) , two side portions (portions of 12 that extend along the sides of the seat, either in their entirety or only the portions at or below the level of 18, see e.g. FIGS. 2-3) arranged on either side of the central portion and integral with the central portion (the back of 12 is shown as a single piece with the sides of 12, and/or they are integrally formed as all form the single unit 12), and a pocket portion (16) comprising a first edge (16a) and a second edge (16b) opposite one another (see, e.g. FIGS. 3--4), the pocket portion delimiting a storage space, the first edge (16a) of the pocket portion being secured to the upper edge of the central portion (FIG. 3) and the second edge of the pocket portion being secured to the lower edge of the upper portion (FIG. 3), the pocket portion being folded on itself to form two pocket panels (noting fold at the bottom shown in FIG. 3), the first edge and the second edge together delimiting an access opening to the storage space (see, e.g. FIGS. 3-4), the upper portion being secured to the side portions on either side of the opening (they are integrally formed and so inherently secured together and are attached on the left and right of the opening, respectively which are either side of the opening), but does not disclose that the seat covering element further comprising a protective plate arranged at least partially between the pocket portion and the central portion.
However, Diaz discloses the use of a protective plate (stiffener 88) within an outer portion of a seatback pocket in order to transfer a load placed on the outer portion to the stiffener.
O’Neill discloses the use of stiffening panels internal to the sides of a pocket structure in order to provide structural integrity while protecting the contents of the pocket from impact damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Diaz, to add a protective plate (stiffener 88) between the pocket portion and the central portion in order to transfer a load placed on the outer portion to the stiffener (for clarity, this combination encompasses also adding a carrying structure as taught by Diaz or some other carrying structure, but this is not necessary for the combination); or given the disclosure of O’Neill to add a stiffening panel between the pocket portion and the central portion (i.e. internal to the side of the seat pocket as it is between the interior portion forming the pocket and the exterior portion surrounding the pocket) in order to provide structural integrity while protecting the contents of the pocket from impact damage.
Alternately, O’Neill provides motivation to have the stiffening panel located internally to the structure (i.e. the particular location between the pocket portion and central portion) and Diaz provides motivation to use a stiffener as part of a seatback pocket structure and so the two in combination provide further evidence of the obviousness of this modification.
With Respect to Claim 2
The seat covering element according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion is further secured to the central portion on either side of the opening, between the opening and each side portion (they are integrally formed and so inherently secured together).
With Respect to Claim 3
The seat covering element according to claim 1, wherein the pocket portion comprises third and fourth edges (noting left and right edges of 16, shown in FIG. 4) extending from the first edge to the second edge, the two pocket panels being secured to one another along the third and fourth edges (FIG. 3) as well as along a fold line extending away from the opening relative to the pocket portion (noting fold line at the bottom, see e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 4
The seat covering element according to claim 1, wherein the pocket portion is enclosed between its first and second edges (FIG. 3 shows it enclosed by 12).
With Respect to Claim 6
The seat covering element according to claim 5, wherein the protective plate is secured to the pocket portion along the third and fourth edges of the pocket portion (Diaz discloses it extending and attached along the equivalent of the third and fourth edges noting the attachment of its stiffening panel to the straps, as to O’Neill, as it stiffens the wall and must be attached to some portion, it is Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to attach it along any or all edges of the pocket portion as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment location or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)). There is no inventive step in the mere selection of one of many suitable attachment locations between two parts that are attached together.
With Respect to Claim 8
The seat covering element according to claim 1, but does not detail a particular size for the parts and so does not disclose wherein the length of the pocket panels measured orthogonally to the first and/or second edge defines a depth (P) of the storage space, the depth (P) of the storage space being substantially between 5 mm and 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to size the pocket’s depth in the claimed range, in order to allow for holding an item with at least one dimension that is approximately 5-20 mm or smaller, as a mere selection of an art appropriate size for the pocket, and/or as making it that size instead of a smaller or larger size constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With Respect to Claim 9
A seat comprising at least one support element comprising a body (14) and the seat covering element according to claim 1, said covering element covering at least a portion of the body (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-3).
With Respect to Claim 10
A method for manufacturing the seat covering element according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: securing the two side portions to the central portion; securing the first edge of the pocket portion to the upper edge of the central portion and securing the second edge of the pocket portion to the lower edge of the upper portion; folding the pocket portion to form two pocket panels; and securing the upper portion to the side portions on either side of the opening delimited by the first and second edges of the pocket portion (as all of these parts are secured together in the claimed configuration as recited in claim 1, the steps of securing them together is inherent as this step must be performed in order for the parts to be secured together; for clarity, it is noted that even monolithically forming the parts together meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of this step as the step of forming them monolithically inherently also secures them together).
With Respect to Claim 12
The seat covering according to claim 1, wherein a maximum width of the storage space lies entirely within a maximum width of the central portion of the covering element (as shown, the pocket has the same width as the central portion, or to the degree that some other construction might be possible, this sizing is clearly obvious and/or constitutes at most a mere selection of an art appropriate size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))).
With Respect to Claim 13
The seat covering according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a maximum width of the storage space lies entirely within a maximum width of the protective plate and the maximum width of the protective plate lies entirely within a maximum width of the central portion of the covering element.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to size the protective plate to be within a maximum width of the central portion of the covering element in order to transfer a load placed on that part of the outer portion to the stiffener as taught by Diaz and/or to protect the pocket contents as taught by O’Neill, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))); and it would also have been obvious to size the storage space to be within the maximum width of the protective plate (i.e. to make the protective plate at least as wide as the storage space) in order to provide protection to the storage space as taught by O’Neill without providing a larger protective plate than necessary, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate size or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))).
With Respect to Claim 14
The seat covering according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion is secured to the central portion on either side of the access opening, between the opening and each side portion (for clarity, for this claim the central portion is taken to include some portion below and to either side of the slit 18 and the side portions are taken to be the portion of the rear panel between the side edges and the central portion).
With Respect to Claim 15
The seat covering according to claim 1, wherein the lower edge of the upper portion and the upper edge of the central portion are free from each other only at the access opening to allow access to the storage space (as shown they are integrally formed and thus attached together at all points other than the access opening).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP H03118043 (‘043) in view of U.S. Patent #10,589,688 to Diaz Paredes (Diaz) or U.S. Patent Publication #2009/0134190 to O’Neill (O’Neill) and U.S. Patent #10,589,688 to Diaz Paredes (Diaz).
With Respect to Claim 7
‘043 in view of Diaz or O’Neill and Diaz (see the rejection of claims 1 and 6 for details of these combinations) discloses the seat covering element according to claim 6, and Diaz discloses the use of sewing to attach the protective plate (it is noted that sewing commonly produces a seam and so is considered to inherently disclose the seam or alternately render such obvious); but does not disclose wherein the protective plate is secured to the pocket portion by a seam arranged at a distance substantially of between 3 mm and 7 mm from the third and fourth edges of the pocket portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to secure the pocket portion via sewing/a seam arranged at a distance substantially of between 3 mm and 7 mm from the third and fourth edges of the pocket portion (for clarity, 3-7 mm interior to these edges) as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for the sewn connection/seam or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art ( MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that given the relative sizing of the chair the pocket as shown is clearly large enough to allow for this, to the degree that no sizing is given for the parts and it could be argued that the pocket might possibly be made to be too small to allow for this, sizing the pocket to allow for this seam location would be obvious to allow for holding large items, based on the relative sizing of the parts shown and intended use as a seat and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate size and/or a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are largely either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments that claim 10 further limits the parent claim are persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1, Examiner maintains that the subject matter of previous claim 5 and amended claim 1 are obvious in view of the disclosure of Diaz and/or O’Neill. In response to Applicant’s arguments that Matsura discloses the pocket being able to be turned inside out for cleaning, and the combination would prevent this, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination would prevent the pocket being turned inside out for cleaning. Although, as Applicant argues, Diaz’s protective plate is inside of the pocket, this is because Dias does not have a separate pocket like that of the ‘043 patent (i.e. Diaz has only the outer wall and inner wall of the pocket, rather than an outermost wall and a pair of pocket walls). Examiner maintains that as the purpose of Diaz’s protective plate is to stiffen the most exterior wall of the seat, a person of ordinary skill in the art would add the protective plate attached to the inside of this exterior wall of the seat cover, rather than inside of the pocket structure of the ‘043 patent, as that is the location that would best perform this function and best corresponds to the actual desired location of the protective plate of Diaz (i.e. directly interior to the exterior wall that it is meant to stiffen). It is noted that the O’Neill reference provides additional evidence of the obviousness of this construction as it discloses the use of a protective plate between an outer wall of a pocket and an inner wall of the pocket. This is considered sufficient response to Applicant’s related arguments, e.g. given that the location inside the pocket of the ‘043 patent that Applicant claims would be the only obvious place to add the protective plate per Diaz is not in fact the only (or even most) obvious place to add it, the combination does not interfere with the pocket being turned inside out.
In response to applicant's argument that O’Neill is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, O’Neill is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor which includes pocket structures to hold a phone/smartphone (for clarity, pocket structures designed to hold a particular object may be located on innumerable different objects, and so the analogous art area is not limited to only vehicular seat pockets as Applicant’s arguments appear to indicate), and/or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which includes protecting the contents of a pocket, noting also that the inventive pocket, like the O’Neill pocket, is also intended to hold a phone/smartphone.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the protective plates of O’Neill are not arranged as claimed and the externally accessible pockets (9, 10) of the phone case do not include exterior stiffening panels, the O’Neill case’s main compartment is a pocket and its exterior walls include internal stiffening panels to protect the contents of this pocket. The externally accessible pockets (9, 10) are additional external pockets, and although it would be obvious to add such to the ‘043 structure, doing so is not part of the current combination. Examiner maintains that O’Neill’s disclosure of stiffening panels on the exterior walls of a compartment/pocket to protect the pocket contents provides sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a protective plate for this purpose between the interior and exterior walls of the pocket structure of the ‘043 patent (i.e. between the pocket portion and the central portion). This addition constitutes merely combining prior art elements (i.e. combining an internal protective plate in compartment/pocket walls with a different pocket/compartment structure) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e. it will stiffen the wall and protect the pocket contents).
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding new claims 11-15, see the rejections above for how the prior art discloses or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights