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 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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites an angle within 80-100 degrees and within 85-95 degrees. It is unclear how this is to be interpreted (i.e. to be within 85-95 degrees, the angle would necessarily be within 80-100 degrees; why is this range recited?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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, 6, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Labish (US Patent Number 8752902) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Labish in view of Glaser (US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0115276) and/or Mashimo (US Patent Number 7568761).
Regarding claim 1, Labish discloses an assembly comprising: a seat cushion (32) defining a slot (70 and/or 72); a trim cover (including 62, 64) comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second surface is disposed on the seat cushion and the first surface is opposite to the second surface; and a retainer (10) extending into the slot and attached to the second surface of the trim cover on the seat cushion (at least indirectly; i.e. even if the retainer only directly contacts the first surface, it is nevertheless attached to the second surface on the seat cushion), the retainer comprising a weakened region (at 46 for instance) between a first region (14) attached to the second surface of the trim cover on the seat cushion and a second region (18 and/or 22) that extends into the slot (see figures). While Labish is thus viewed as anticipating the claim, the second surface attachment of the retainer may not be clear (i.e. not contacting as perhaps Applicant intends). Wide variation in retainer attachment is well-known as shown by Glaser and Mashimo who both disclose trim covers comprising first and second surfaces, wherein the second surfaces are disposed on seat cushions and the first surfaces are opposite to the second surfaces; and retainers extending into slots and attached to the second surfaces of the trim covers on the seat cushions (see at least Figure 2 of Glaser and Figure 1 of Mashimo). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide retainer attachment as taught by Glaser and/or Mashimo in Labish’s device because this could provide a more secure or compact arrangement to improve user comfort or safety.
Regarding claim 6, Labish, optionally as modified, further discloses the trim cover and the first region of the retainer are parallel on the seat cushion (see figures showing 14, 62, and 64 parallel on the seat cushion). Note that Labish modified by Glaser and/or Mashimo would similarly disclose such an arrangement.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above including an angle between the first region of the retainer and the second region of the retainer is between 70 degrees and 110 degrees, wherein the angle is between 80 degrees and 100 degrees, and wherein the angle is between 85 degrees and 95 degrees (see Figures 7 and 9 showing 18 at a right angle to 14). While Labish is thus viewed as anticipating the claims, explicit disclosure of the angle may not be clear. However, changes in shape and dimension of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the angles as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and performance for various users.
Regarding claim 17, Labish discloses an assembly comprising: a seat cushion (32) defining a slot (70 and/or 72); a trim cover (including 62, 64) comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second surface is disposed on the seat cushion and the first surface is opposite to the second surface; and a retainer (10) attached to the second surface of the trim cover on the seat cushion (at least indirectly; i.e. even if the retainer only directly contacts the first surface, it is nevertheless attached to the second surface on the seat cushion) and extending into the slot, the retainer folded at a right angle along a fold line (at 46; see Figures 8 showing what would appear to be a right angle fold), wherein a first cross sectional area of material along the fold line is less than a second cross sectional area of material along a first line parallel to and adjacent to a first side of the fold line and also less than a third cross sectional area of material along a second line parallel to and adjacent to a second side of the fold line (see figures showing the fold line as thinner than the other sections). While Labish is thus viewed as anticipating the claims, the second surface attachment of the retainer may not clearly be as Applicant intends and explicit disclosure of the angle may not be clear. Regarding the angle, changes in shape and dimension of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the angles as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and performance for various users. Regarding the attachment, wide variation in retainer attachment is well-known as shown by Glaser and Mashimo who both disclose trim covers comprising first and second surfaces, wherein the second surfaces are disposed on seat cushions and the first surfaces are opposite to the second surfaces; and retainers extending into slots and attached to the second surfaces of the trim covers on the seat cushions (see at least Figure 2 of Glaser and Figure 1 of Mashimo). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide retainer attachment as taught by Glaser and/or Mashimo in Labish’s device because this could provide a more secure or compact arrangement to improve user comfort or safety.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labish, optionally in view of Glaser and/or Mashimo.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above including a first cross sectional area of material within the weakened region is less than a second cross sectional area of material in the first region and also less than a third cross sectional area of material in the second region and a first stiffness of the weakened region is less than a second stiffness of the first region and also less than a third stiffness of the second region (necessarily based on the functionality of the device and typical living hinges), but does not disclose specific dimensions or material properties. Changes in size, shape, and material properties require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dimensions and properties as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and performance for various users.
Regarding claim 16, Labish, optionally as modified, further discloses the retainer further comprises a paddle (20A for instance) attached to a distal end of the second region, the paddle holding the retainer in the slot, but may not clearly disclose the paddle perpendicular to the second region. Changes in shape or dimension require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the angles as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and performance for various users.
Regarding claims 18-20, Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly structurally as claimed (including fastening a distal end of the second portion to an object on an opposite side of the seat cushion from the trim cover in that 22 is fastened to barbs 20 on an opposite side of the cushion from the cover) but may not explicitly discloses a method of use. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device as claimed because the normal use of the assembly would include the steps as set forth.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labish, optionally in view of Glaser and/or Mashimo, and further in view of Moeker (US Patent Number 11192520). Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above but does not disclose specifics of the weakened region. Moeker discloses a relate device including a weakened region with at least one perforation line and/or formed by debossing (see figures, the second full paragraph of column 3, and the first full paragraph of column 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a weakened region as taught by Moeker in Labish’s device, optionally as previously modified, because this could improve performance and control over the region to ensure user convenience and safety.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labish, optionally in view of Glaser and/or Mashimo, and further in view of Smith (US Patent Number 5974607). Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above but does not disclose specifics of the cover attachment. Smith discloses a relate device including the use of glue and/or blind stitching (see the first two paragraphs of column 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an attachment as taught by Smith in Labish’s device, optionally as previously modified, because this could improve user comfort and safety.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labish, optionally in view of Glaser and/or Mashimo, and further in view of Schaefer (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0345634). Labish, optionally as modified, discloses an assembly as explained above but does not disclose particular materials. Material choice is a routine design decision and Schaefer discloses a related device using materials as claimed (see at least the abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use materials as taught by Schaefer in Labish’s device, optionally as previously modified, because this could improve user comfort and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Labish does not disclose the retainer attached to the second surface of the trim cover on the seat cushion as in the amended claims. Applicant further argues that Labish does not provide the trim cover and first region parallel on the cushion, that the rejection of claims 18-20 lacks full mapping, and that the cross-section area limitations of claims 2 and 3 are non-obvious.
Regarding the retainer attachment, while it is acknowledged that the exact arrangement of attachment of Labish may differ somewhat from that of the invention, it is maintained that Labish provides the attachment as currently claimed as explained above (that is, the retainer is at least indirectly attached to the second surface on the seat cushion). Nevertheless, as it appears based on Applicant’s argument that the intention was perhaps a direct contact between the retainer and the second surface and/or the seat cushion, an optional obviousness rejection has been provided above.
Regarding the parallel orientation, as explained above, it is maintained that Labish provides such an arrangement as seen in figures showing 14, 62, and 64 parallel on the seat cushion. Further, even if modified by Glaser or Mashimo, a similar arrangement would result.
Regarding the mapping of claims 18-20, the functional elements are mapped in the rejections of the product claims 1-10 and 12-17 (with the exception of the fastening noted and explained in the rejection of claims 18-20). The method steps are acknowledged in the obviousness rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 3, it is maintained that the dimensions appear to be disclosed but are nevertheless obvious based on normal variation in size and shape, etc. The claimed dimensions provide no unexpected results and such an arrangement would have been obvious based on a desire to improve function and performance for various users as explained above.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights