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 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 1-10 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.
With Respect to Claim 1
It recites the limitation "the lower edge of the central portion " in line 13. 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.
With Respect to Claim 3
The scope of the phrase “third and fourth edges connecting the first and second edges to one another” is unclear, noting that this would normally be interpreted to mean that the third and fourth edges extend between the first and second edges (e.g., top edges of sidewalls between the front and rear top edges forming the opening), but the inventive edges appear to extend vertically and only contact the first and second edges at the top where three edges meet (e.g. the first and second edges are top edges and meet at a corner with the third edge on one side and a corner with the right edge). As such, it is unclear how the third and fourth edges “connect” the first and second edges to one another.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-10
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
With Respect to Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already requires the parts to be secured together as claimed, and so the steps of securing those parts together is inherent in the apparatus claims and so claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H03118043 (‘043).
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) 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 central 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).
With Respect to Claim 2
The seat cover 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 cover 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) connecting the first and second edges to one another, the two pocket portions 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 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).
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.
Claims 5-6 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 5
The seat covering element according to claim 1, but does not disclose comprising a protective plate, the protective plate being arranged at least partially between the pocket portion and the central portion.
However, Diaz disclsoes 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 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.
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 5-6 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)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP H03118043 (‘043).
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)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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