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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional claim limitations which are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claims 21-22, “gripping tool”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recitation of a tool. While the limitation “tool” is broad, it is considered a structural limitation rather than a generic placeholder. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a gripping tool to indicate a broad class of structures which can grip a material.
ii. Claim 22, “heating tool”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recitation of a tool. While the limitation “tool” is broad, it is considered a structural limitation rather than a generic placeholder. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a heating tool to indicate a broad class of structures which can heat a material.
iii. Claims 30-32, “grasping tool”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recitation of a tool. While the limitation “tool” is broad, it is considered a structural limitation rather than a generic placeholder. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a grasping tool to indicate a broad class of structures which can grasp a material.
iv. Claims 30 and 33, “thermal actuator”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recitation of an actuator. While the limitation “actuator” is broad, it is considered a structural limitation rather than a generic placeholder. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a thermal actuator to indicate a broad class of structures which can provide thermal energy to a material. It is also noted that claim 33 recites additional structure of the thermal actuator.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 29 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 26, the examiner suggests --the plurality of grooves-- in both instances of lines 3-4. This change is suggested to use consistent claim language for improved claim readability.
Regarding claim 29, “are polyethylene” should be --[[are]] comprise polyethylene-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 31, the examiner suggests --a plurality of [[the]] grasping tools-- and --a plurality of [[the]] thermal actuators.-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 31, “comprise” at the end of line 2 should be --comprises-- to correct the grammar.
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 18-22 and 24-35 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 18, line 6, it is unclear if “predetermined locations” is referencing the previously recited “predetermined locations” in line 5. The examiner suggests --the predetermined locations-- in line 6.
Regarding claim 18, line 7, it is unclear which of the previously recited plural “predetermined locations” is being referenced by “the predetermined location”. The examiner suggests --the predetermined locations.-- in line 7.
Claims 19-22 are dependent on canceled claims. It is believed claims 19-21 should be dependent on claim 18 and claim 22 should be dependent on claim 21. For the purpose of examination, this has been taken as the intended dependency.
Regarding claim 21, the disclosure indicates that each tie down strip is grasped with a respective gripping tool. It is unclear in claim 21 how a sing gripping tool can grasp plural tie down strips. The examiner suggests --with [[a]] gripping tools--. Additionally “tie down strip” at the end of line 2 should be --tie down strips--. As written, it is unclear which tie down strip of the previously recited plural tie down strips is being referenced.
Regarding claim 22, the examiner suggests --inserting [[a]] heating tools into the mesh pad adjacent to the gripping tools in the predetermined locations--. These corrections are similar to those noted above. It is unclear which predetermined location of the previously recited plural predetermined locations is being referenced by “the predetermined location” and plural respective heating tools and gripping tools are disclosed as being used to grip and heat the plural tie down strips.
Claims 24-29 are dependent on cancelled claims. It is believed claims 24-25 and 27-29 should be dependent on claim 23 and claim 26 should be dependent on claim 25. For the purpose of examination, this has been taken as the intended dependency.
Regarding claim 30, the language is confusing in that it does not clearly indicate that each of the at least one grasping tool is configured to grasp a respective tie down strip attached to the seat cover and pull it to a respective predetermined location. As written, it is unclear how the at least one grasping tool is associated with respective tie down strips and predetermined locations. The examiner suggests --the mesh pad [[that]], wherein each of the at least one grasping tool is configured to grasp a respective tie down strip that is attached to [[a]] the seat cover and pulls the respective tie down strip to a respective predetermined location in the mesh pad;--. The change to “the seat cover” is suggested to more clearly reference the previously recited seat cover in the preamble of claim 30.
Regarding claim 30, a similar issue to that noted above is found with respect to the at least one thermal actuator in lines 7-8. The examiner suggests --at least one thermal actuator [[that]], wherein each of the at least one thermal actuator melts a respective portion of the mesh pad onto the respective tie down strip in the respective predetermined location.--.
Claims 31-35 are dependent on a cancelled claim. It is believed they should be dependent on claim 30. For the purpose of examination, this has been taken as the intended dependency.
Regarding claim 31, in the objection above, the examiner suggested --a plurality of [[the]] grasping tools-- and --a plurality of [[the]] thermal actuators.-- to correct the grammar. This also corrects a potential issue of insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if “at least one grasping tool” and “at least one thermal actuator” as recited in claim 30 provides sufficient antecedent basis for plural “the grasping tools” and plural “the thermal actuators”, respectively, in claim 31. In particular, “at least one” does not require a plurality, but rather is satisfied by only one.
Claims 32-33, these claims have similar issues to those noted above in claim 30. It is also unclear which of the at least one grasping tool is being referenced by “the grasping tool” and similarly, which of the at least one thermal actuator is being referenced by “the thermal actuator”. In claim 32, the examiner suggests --wherein each of the at least one grasping tool includes a hook that grasps the respective tie down strip.--. In claim 33, the examiner suggests --wherein each of the at least one thermal actuator--.
Regarding claim 34, to make this claim consistent with the changes above, the examiner suggests --the respective tie down strip--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed. Claims 18-22 and 24-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Minor objections to claims 26, 29 and 31 also need to be corrected, for example as suggested above.
Kristo (US 2019/0002272 A1) is considered the closest prior art of record. In one embodiment, Kristo teaches welding a cover direction to a mesh pad of polymer fibers by heating with a laser head, as well as the corresponding covered seat cushion and apparatus for manufacturing the covered seat cushion (Figures 7-8; paragraphs 1, 12-13, 23, 139 and 173-175). However, in combination with the claimed limitations of claim 18, Kristo does not teach a cover including tie down strips, moving the tie down strips into predetermined locations within the mesh pad hand melting a portion of the polymer fibers onto the tie down strips. With respect to claim 23, in combination with the claimed limitations, Kristo does not teach a seat cover including tie down strips and welds securing the tie down strips to the polymer fibers of the mesh pad. With respect to claim 30, in combination with the claimed limitations, Kristo does not teach the combined claimed limitations of the at least one grasping tool inserted into the fixture and configured to be inserted in the mesh pad to grasp a tie down strip and pull the tie down strip to a predetermined location in the mesh pad and the claimed thermal actuator which melts a portion of the mesh pad onto the tie down strip.
Andersson (US 2009/0152909 A1) and Kheil (US 2015/0089773 A1) are cited of general interest for teaching the use of tie down strips in securing covers to seat cushions, but do not teach or suggest the above noted allowable subject matter. See Andersson (Figure 2). See Kheil (Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights