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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 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 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 recite the opening associated with “a [the] tie down of the trim cover assembly.” As the opening is introduced as being of the trim cover assembly or the comfort layer, it is unclear if this language is intended to specify that the opening must be in the trim cover assembly.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonk (US Patent Number 11312273).
Regarding claim 1, Bonk discloses an assembly, comprising: a trim cover assembly (including 20); a comfort layer (including 30); and a retention fastener (including 62, 68) including a stem and a crossbar (an upper or left portion, and a lower or right portion, respectively as in Figure 7 for instance), wherein the stem is joined to one of the trim cover assembly and the comfort layer at a joining point (the stem of 62 is joined to 20 at 68), the other of the trim cover assembly and the comfort layer includes an opening (44 of 30 for instance), and the retention fastener received through the opening with the crossbar opposite the opening from the joining point (see at least Figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, Bonk further discloses a seat frame (inherent even if not clearly described; alternatively, a base portion of the assembly as in Figure 1); and a seat cushion (18 for instance) supported by at least a portion of the seat frame, wherein the trim cover assembly is positioned over the seat cushion (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 3, Bonk further discloses the comfort layer is positioned between the seat cushion and the trim cover assembly (this is the general arrangement; see again at least Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Bonk further discloses the comfort layer is a heat mat (member 30 provides heat via element 34).
Regarding claim 5, Bonk further discloses the retention fastener is T-shaped (see Figure 7).
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) 11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bong. Bong discloses an assembly as explained above but may not disclose a method of use. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the assembly as claimed because the normal use of the device would encompass the steps as set forth.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bong in view of Brandt et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0346820).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bong discloses an assembly as explained above but does not disclose particular materials or welding. Brandt discloses a related device including the use of thermoplastic polyurethane and welding of components (see at least paragraphs 22-24). 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 and welding as taught by Brandt in the Bong assembly because this could provide simple and inexpensive means of providing safe and secure components for user comfort and safety. Note that even if the arrangement of components were not clear (e.g. welding with comfort layer), duplication and reversal of components require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the arrangement as claimed base on normal variation to improve fit, comfort, or convenience for various users.
Regarding claim 8, Bong discloses an assembly as explained above and would appear to at least disclose the opening provided at a tie down of the trim cover assembly but may not disclose it in the assembly as best understood. However, duplication and reversal of components require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed base on normal variation to improve fit, comfort, or convenience for various users.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bong discloses an assembly as explained above including a seat frame; and a seat cushion supported by at least a portion of the seat frame, wherein the trim cover assembly is positioned over the seat cushion, wherein the comfort layer is a heat mat positioned between the seat cushion and the trim cover assembly, and the retention fastener is T-shaped (see at least the rejections of claims 2-5 above), but does not disclose particular materials or welding, and may not disclose the opening arrangement as best understood. Brandt discloses a related device including the use of thermoplastic polyurethane and welding of components (see at least paragraphs 22-24). 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 and welding as taught by Brandt in the Bong assembly because this could provide simple and inexpensive means of providing safe and secure components for user comfort and safety. Regarding the arrangement of components and the opening, duplication and reversal of components require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the arrangement as claimed base on normal variation to improve fit, comfort, or convenience for various users.
Regarding claims 12-15, Bong, modified as described, discloses an assembly as explained above but may not disclose a method of use. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the assembly as claimed because the normal use of the device would encompass the steps as set forth.
Conclusion
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 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