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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The use of the terms “Velcro”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For clarity, please change the term “comprised” in line 3 to “enclosed,” as described by the specification (page 5, line 6)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one coupling member for coupling inside the pocket” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the coupling member is understood to be Velcro, buttons, and equivalents as described in the specification (page 5, lns. 19-25).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-4 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term “high liquid retention capacity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high liquid retention capacity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the inner layer will be understood to be to be made from an absorbent material.
Claims 3-4 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name “Velcro.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a coupling member and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetrault et al. (US 20170359967 A1) in view of Yamada (US 20190110529 A1), and Lacey (US 9221372 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tetrault teaches a textile element (abstract, Fig. 2), wherein it comprises:
- a passive fragrance diffuser (Fig. 2, apparatus 200 comprises odor neutralizers 201 [0056] which can be diffused [0082] wherein the odor neutralizers are understood to contain a fragrance [0060], [0094]), comprising:
- an inner layer imbued with a fragrance (Fig. 2, super absorbent polymer composition layer 202 contains odor neutralizers 201, [0055-0056]) and provided with a peripheral rim (Fig. 2, inner layer understood to have a terminal end which is a peripheral rim)
- a first outer layer which is hydrophobic, oleophobic and permeable to air (Fig. 2, outer layer 204 can be made of GORETEX/Teflon, which are understood to be hydrophobic, oleophobic, and air permeable materials [0055-0058]);
- a second outer layer which is hydrophobic, oleophobic and permeable to air (Fig. 2, outer layer 206 can be made of Gortex/Teflon, which are understood to be hydrophobic, oleophobic, and permeable to air [0055-0058]), wherein
- the inner layer is enclosed between the first outer layer and the second outer layer (Fig. 2, inner layer 202 enclosed between outer layers 204 and 206).
Tetrault teaches the inner layer (SAP) may be adhered to the substrate (understood to include the outer and inner layers) via a variety of water-based adhesives such as acrylics [0049] but does not teach wherein the first outer layer and the second outer layer are joined together by a double-sided adhesive tape at least along a peripheral area surrounding the peripheral rim of the inner layer. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with ensuring the inner layer is properly adhered between the two outer layers, motivating one to turn towards Yamada.
Yamada teaches a composite textile sheet (Fig. 1B, 1) comprising two outer, textile layers (Fig. 1B, 2 and 3) that enclose an inner layer (Fig. 1B, 4) that may be fixed together alongside an area surrounding the peripheral of the inner layer via a double-sided adhesive (Fig. 1B, adhesive 7 understood to be double-sided tape [0066].
Yamada is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to composite textile elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer layers as taught by Tetrault to be adhered alongside a perimeter of an inner layer with a double sided adhesive as taught by Yamada because Yamada teaches the adhesive to bond two textile layers together without negatively affecting the moisture transpiration property and air permeability of the enclosed inner layer [0066] and this involves the combination of elements (the outer layers of Tertrault with the adhesive of Yamada) to yield a predictable result (bonded outer layers that enclose an inner layer) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Tetrault also teaches wherein the textile element can be multi-use and incorporated into a cover/blanket (Tetrault, [0056]) but does not teach wherein the textile element comprises a pocket inside which the diffuser is removably inserted. One having ordinary skill in the art would be contemplate a variety of areas to incorporate the fragrant textile into, motivating one to turn towards Lacey.
Lacey teaches a sanitizing protective seat cover (Fig. 3, seat cover 1) comprising a pouch (14) designed to be fastened to the seat cover wherein the pouch may contain a fumigant textile package (30) designed to emit fragrant vapors to the air (col. 5, lns. 6-18). Lacey further teaches wherein the textile package contains a detachable adhesive surface (Fig. 4, 32 and 33) configured to release fragrance particles from within the textile (col. 5, lns. 19-27).
Lacey is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the fragrant textile arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the textile element as taught by Modified Tetrault to include the pouch configured to contain a fragrant package as taught by Lacey because Lacey teaches the pouch to allow a fragrant textile to be coupled to a variety of surfaces such as a seat cover (col. 5, lns. 6-18) and this involves the combination of elements (the textile element of Modified Tetrault and the pouch as taught by Lacey) to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer is made of absorbent material with high liquid retention capacity (Tetrault, layer 202 is a super absorbent polymer [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 2, wherein the inner layer is made of porous material (Tetrault, SAP can be a porous structure [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 2, wherein the material of the inner layer comprises polyethylene (Tetrault, SAP can be polyethylene [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the first outer layer and the second outer layer are made of polymeric material (Tetrault, Fig. 2, outer layers 204 and 206 can be made of polymers [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the double-sided tape comprises a central polymeric layer comprised between two layers of acrylic adhesive (Yamada, teaches an inner polymeric layer (Fig. 1B, 4) with adhesive on both sides = understood to be double sided tape; Tetrault, adhesive may be acrylic adhesive [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein diffuser comprises at least one coupling member for coupling inside the pocket.
Lacey further teaches wherein the pouch may comprises a coupling mechanism for securing a fragrant diffuser to the interior of the pouch (col. 5, lns. 27-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pouch as taught by Modified Tertrault to include the coupling mechanism as taught by Lacey because Lacey teaches the coupling mechanism to secure a fragrant diffuser to the interior of the pouch (col. 5, lns. 27-41) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 7, wherein the coupling member comprises Velcro or a magnet (Lacey, coupling mechanism can be a hook-and-felt fastening mechanism = Velcro, ([col. 5, lns. 27-41]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the pocket is provided with a closable mouth (Lacey, Fig. 3, pocket is provided with a zipper 15 and a closable mouth).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Tetrault teaches the textile element according to claim 1, wherein the textile element is a headrest cushion for vehicles (Lacey, Figures 1-3, the pouch 14 also functions as a header designed to attached to a seat cover, col. 4, lns. 62-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021236158 A1 teaches a self-cleaning fabric cover for aircraft seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights