February 26, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
On page 1 of the specification, under “CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS”, Applicant needs to insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 12,109,926 B2 - -, after “This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/337,814, filed on June 20, 2023,”
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 8, and claim 19, line 10, the phrase “wherein each of side surfaces of the groove” is awkward language. Applicant should probably define that the groove - - has a pair of opposing side surfaces - - or - - a first side surface and a second side surface - - or similar language so that in claim 1 line 8, and claim 19, line 10, Applicant can use - - wherein each of the side surfaces of the groove - -. : In claim 8, line 4, it appears the word “that” should be - - than - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,926 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter of claims 1-9 and 19-20 is claimed in claims 1-2, 4-9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,926 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilardi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0044940 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Gilardi teaches a seat, comprising:
a pad 7 having a groove 71 which opens on a surface side, having a width and a depth, and extending in a prescribed direction;
a skin material covering 8 the surface side of the pad in a thickness direction thereof, and
a skin locking clip 2 embedded in the pad and configured to tuck in a prescribed linear portion of the skin material,
wherein each of side surfaces of the groove near a bottom thereof has an inclined surface directed to an inside in the width direction toward the bottom so as to be connected to a surface of the skin locking clip but does not teach that a color of the skin locking clip is different from a color of the pad. The color of the skin locking clip is nothing more than design choice since it has no significance on the functionality of the locking clip. And the locking clip disclosed by Gilardi is certainly capable of being arranged at a crossing portion crossing in which a first groove crosses a second groove.
As for claim 12, Gilardi teaches that the inclined surface is connected to an intermediate portion of the surface of the skin locking clip so that an inner portion of the surface thereof in the width direction is exposed.
As for claim 4, Gilardi teaches that the skin locking clip 2 comprises a base plate 20 embedded in the pad 7, and a pair of locking pieces 21,22 extending toward a surface side from the base plate and opposed to each other in a width direction of the groove,
wherein each of the pair of locking pieces includes a wall body erected on the base plate, a locking claw extending from a tip portion of the wall body toward an inside in the width direction so as to lock the linear portion, and a guide portion extending from the tip portion of the wall body toward an outside in the width direction,
wherein the inclined surface is connected to the guide portion.
As for claim 5, Gilardi teaches that the skin locking clip comprises a base plate embedded in the pad, and a pair of locking pieces extending toward a surface side from the base plate and opposed to each other in a width direction of the groove,
wherein each of the pair of locking pieces includes a wall body erected on the base plate, and a locking claw extending from a tip portion of the wall body toward an inside in the width direction so as to lock the linear portion,
wherein the locking claw is partially embedded in the pad.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilardi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0044940 A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method steps as recited as this would be the normal and logical manner of assembling the device as taught by the reference discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. Dunn can be reached on (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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636