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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed 8 IDS documents on 29 June 2026 citing several hundred references. This volume of citations would appear excessive and is not conducive to efficient examination. The sheer number of documents cited gives the appearance that either Applicant does not have any particular inventive feature in mind for the present application and/or that Applicant intends to obscure the most relevant references rather than highlight them to aid examination. A more limited number of truly relevant prior art references would be greatly preferred.
The information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered only as indicated on the attached copies.
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 8 and 9 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.
Claims 8 and 9 recite limitations related to the composition of the mesh structure. While a mesh structure is recited functionally in claim 1, the claim is drawn to the retention clip itself. It is unclear how structural limitations related to components only introduced functionally should be interpreted.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Picard (FR 2675440; copy and machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Picard discloses a retention clip comprising: an anchor (46) comprising a body with a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the second end terminating in a tip (a lower end portion; see figures), the anchor comprising a plurality of barbs (at least some members 56), each barb extending from the body in a direction away from the tip; and a retention feature (at least a portion of 48) extending away from the first end of the anchor, wherein the retention feature comprises a pair of arms (vertical portions of 48), each of the pair of arms terminating in a retention member (at least 52), wherein the pair of arms and corresponding retention members are adapted to capture a mating attachment feature (50) of a trim cover within the retention feature; wherein a material of a mesh structure (38) is gripped between the body and each of the plurality of barbs when the anchor is inserted into the mesh structure (this is the general arrangement; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Picard further discloses a base (at least a lower portion of 48), wherein the anchor and the retention feature are disposed on opposite sides of the base (see figures).
Regarding claim 3, Picard further discloses the base has a width greater than a width of the body (see figures showing 48 wider than 46).
Regarding claim 4, Picard further discloses the anchor and the retention feature are an integral piece (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Picard further discloses the retention feature is attached to a trim cover (18, 32) after the anchor is inserted into the mesh structure (the arrangement would at the very least be capable of such attachment; note also that this would be viewed as a product-by-process limitation wherein patentability is determined by the product itself).
Regarding claim 7, Picard further discloses the tip pierces the mesh structure (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 10, Picard further discloses the material of the mesh structure lacks a formed recess for receiving the anchor (this is the general arrangement; i.e. the anchor pierces a mesh at any location rather than a specific “formed recess”).
Regarding claim 11, Picard discloses a seat assembly comprising: a mesh structure (38); a cover (18, 32); and a retention clip according to claim 1, wherein the retention clip attaches the cover to the mesh structure.
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.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picard. Picard discloses a device structurally as claimed but may not explicitly disclose 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 typical use of the device would include the steps as set forth.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picard in view of Aou et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0143635).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Picard discloses a clip as explained above but does not disclose details of the mesh structure. Aou discloses a related device including a mesh structure formed of looped and bonded filaments extruded and formed into a three-dimensional structure (see paragraphs 33-35). 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 mesh structure as taught by Aou in Picard’s device because this could improve comfort and durability for a user.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Picard, modified as described, discloses a device structurally as claimed but may not explicitly disclose 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 typical use of the device would include the steps as set forth.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picard in view of Stantin et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0135485). Picard discloses a clip as explained above but does not disclose details of the mating arrangement. Stantin discloses a related device including a retention feature comprising a pair of angled guide surfaces (at/adjacent 132, 133) that guide a mating attachment feature (108 for instance) of a trim cover into a space between a pair of arms (134); wherein the pair of arms are elastically deformed to receive the mating attachment feature of the trim cover (see at least paragraph 23). 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 mating arrangement as taught by Stantin in Picard’s device because this could provide a reliable, secure, and versatile connection for users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 issues were addressed, and that Picard fails to disclose a retention feature including a pair of arms as in the amended claims.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 8 and 9, it is noted that the rejection points to the general scope of the claims (i.e. that the mesh is recited only functionally) not details of the mesh itself. Thus, Applicant’s amendment to further define the mesh in claims 8 and 9 does not address the prior issue.
Regarding Picard’s device, it is viewed as providing arms (of member 48) as claimed as explained above.
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