DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/947,882 filed 11/14/2024 which claims priority to DE 102023212044.5 filed 11/30/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification omits Fig 2f (see page 7). Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Auraloop”, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi (US 5,322,335)(hereinafter Niemi) in view of Markowitz (US 9,603,462 B2)(hereinafter Markowitz).
RE Claim 1: Niemi discloses a seat element for a vehicle seat, comprising:
at least one carrier part (at least 28, 24, 102, 98) with a first side (side of 98 facing away from 28) and a second side opposite the first side (opposite side of 98); and
a one-piece, planar cushion mat (220) with a first side (top side) and a second side opposite the first side (bottom side),
wherein the one-piece, planar cushion mat is produced from an elastic material (extruded plastic per col 3, ln 55-60), and
wherein the first side of the one-piece, planar cushion mat is arranged at least in some regions on the first side of the at least one carrier part (see at least Fig 5) and is elastically folded around a first edge of the at least one carrier part so that the first side of the one-piece (see at least Fig 5), planar cushion mat is arranged at least in some other regions on the second side of the at least one carrier part and is fixed in an elastically folded state (via 221).
Niemi does not explicitly teach the elastic material comprises non-directionally arranged fibers.
However, Marcowitz teaches a planar cushion mat (protective cover) that rests on a carrier part (couch) (analogous art) and further teaches produced from an elastic material comprising non-directionally arranged fibers (col 4, ln 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi in view of Marcowitz such that the elastic material comprises non-directionally arranged fibers as taught by Marcowitz for the advantages of providing protection to the carrier part.
RE Claim 2: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1,
wherein the one-piece, planar cushion mat, in the some other regions on the second side of the at least one carrier part, comprises one or more fastening elements (the edge of the mat itself, folded)( in an alternative interpretation 221), which fix the one-piece, planar cushion mat in the elastically folded state (Fig 5b)(col 8, ln 60-65).
RE Claim 3: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 2,
wherein the one or more fastening elements engage in one another form-fittingly in order to hold the one-piece, planar cushion mat in its elastically folded state (insomuch as Applicant’s fasteners engage and form fit with one another so does mat 220 and fasteners 221).
RE Claim 4: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 2,
wherein the one or more fastening elements are formed in one piece with the one-piece, planar cushion mat (the edge of the mat itself).
RE Claim 5: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1.
Marcowitz further discloses wherein the one-piece, planar cushion mat has at least two local regions with different densities (hybrid materials per col 4, ln 45-50).
RE Claim 6: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1.
Markowitz further discloses wherein the non-directionally arranged fibers are formed from at least one of polyester, a polyester-based elastomer (col 4, ln 45-50), or polyolefin.
RE Claim 7: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi as modified such that at least one of: i) a ratio between a length of the non-directionally arranged fibers and a diameter of the non-directionally arranged fibers is at least 100, or ii) the diameter of the non-directionally arranged fibers is between 0.2 mm and 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve durability.
RE Claim 8: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi as modified such that the ratio between the length of the non-directionally arranged fibers and the diameter of the non-directionally arranged fibers is 500, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve durability.
RE Claim 9: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi as modified such that the ratio between the length of the non-directionally arranged fibers and the diameter of the non-directionally arranged fibers is 1000, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve durability.
RE Claim 10: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi as modified such that the diameter of the non-directionally arranged fibers is between 0.3 mm and 1.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve durability.
RE Claim 11: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1,
wherein the one-piece, planar cushion mat is elastically folded around a plurality of edges of the at least one carrier part (Figs 5-5b).
RE Claim 12: Niemi as modified discloses the seat element according to claim 1,
wherein the one-piece, planar cushion mat has one or more incisions (between parts 326 and 320).
RE Claim 13: Niemi discloses a method for producing a seat element, the method comprising: providing a cushion mat (220) produced from an elastic material (plastic);
providing a carrier element (at least 28, 24, 102, 98); and
placing the cushion mat on the carrier element in such a way that a first side of the cushion mat is arranged at least in some regions on a first side of the carrier element and is elastically folded around a first edge of the carrier element so that the first side of the cushion mat is arranged at least in some other regions on a second side of the carrier element and is fixed in an elastically folded state (Figs 5 – 5b).
Niemi does not explicitly teach the elastic material comprises non-directionally arranged fibers.
However, Marcowitz teaches a planar cushion mat (protective cover) that rests on a carrier part (couch) (analogous art) and further teaches produced from an elastic material comprising non-directionally arranged fibers (col 4, ln 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Niemi in view of Marcowitz such that the elastic material comprises non-directionally arranged fibers as taught by Marcowitz for the advantages of providing protection to the carrier part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various seat elements with cushions and fasteners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights