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 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 3-6, 8-11, and 14-18 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 3 and 4 recite the limitation "the fastening element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims and it is unclear how it relates to “the plurality of separate fastening elements.”
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of fastening elements.” It is unclear how this relates to “the plurality of separate fastening elements.” It is further unclear if the single separate common fastening wire is included with the fastening elements.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of fastening clips.” It is unclear how this relates to “the plurality of separate fastening elements.” It is further unclear if the single separate common fastening wire is included with the fastening elements.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the respective molded body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 9 recite a second or third fastening point without recitation of a first (or second). This is unclear as it implies the presence of an element not positively recited.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “a first molded body” and “a second molded body.” It is unclear how these relate to the two molded bodies previously recited.
Claim 14 recites “a first attachment part.” It is unclear how this relates to the at least one attachment part previously recited.
Claim 16 recites “a second attachment part.” It is unclear how this relates to the at least one attachment part previously recited. Further, this recitation is unclear as it implies the presence of an element (a first attachment part) not positively recited.
Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the second side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 6, 15, 17, and 18 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on indefinite claims.
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) 1-6, 8-10, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto (US Patent Number 8919878).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a seat element for a vehicle seat, the seat element being formed from two molded bodies (6P and 6Pa for instance; molded at least inasmuch as in the invention) arranged one on top of the other, and comprising a plurality of separate fastening elements (including RM and/or Y1) for fastening at least one attachment part (including 6S) to the seat element, the two molded bodies being arranged in a contact-fitting manner in relation to one another (see figures) and the separate fastening elements being mechanically and detachably fastenable or fastened to at least one of the molded bodies (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto further discloses a plurality of fastening points for fastening the attachment part to the seat element, the fastening points being designed for form-fitting and/or force-fitting arrangement of the fastening elements (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto further discloses the fastening element is a separate fastening wire (at least Y1 is viewed as such).
Regarding claim 4, Sakamoto further discloses the fastening element is a separate fastening clip (at least RM would be viewed as such).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto further discloses a plurality of fastening elements are coupled by a single separate common fastening wire to connect the two molded bodies to each other (a plurality of Rm coupled by a single Y1 for instance).
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto further discloses a plurality of fastening clips are coupled by a single separate common fastening wire to connect the two molded bodies to each other (a plurality of Rm coupled by a single Y1 for instance).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto further discloses a second fastening point being in the form of outwardly open recesses in the respective molded body (see Figures 4).
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto further discloses a third fastening point being formed in one of the molded bodies as a through-opening and in the other molded body as an outwardly open recess (see again Figures 4).
Regarding claim 10, Sakamoto further discloses a first molded body being in the form of a foam body (polyurethane foam is disclosed for instance).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Sakamoto further discloses a first attachment part is attached to a first side of the seat element and fixed by the fastening elements, wherein the first side of the seat element is an upper side or a front side of the seat element (of the seat back for instance).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Sakamoto further discloses a second attachment part is attached to a first side of the seat element and fixed by the fastening elements, wherein the second side of the seat element is a lower side or a rear side of the seat element (of the cushion for instance).
Regarding claim 18, Sakamoto further discloses the first side of the seat element is opposite to the second side of the seat element (at least as best understood).
Regarding claim 19, Sakamoto further discloses a vehicle seat having at least one seat element as claimed in claim 1 (this is the general arrangement).
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) 7, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 7, Sakamoto discloses a device as explained above including a fastening point apparently in the form of a through-opening through both molded bodies (at 6H for instance) but this may not be clear. Whether at 6H or elsewhere (through 6Pa for instance), Sakamoto does disclose through holes forming fastening points and as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a through-opening as claimed based on normal variation to improve manufacture, function, and comfort for various users.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Sakamoto discloses a device as explained above apparently including a second molded body being in the form of a flexible body having a lower strength than the first molded body (6Pa is described as providing a “predetermined level of hardness… to improve the seat's comfort” over 6P), but particular materials or material properties may not be explicitly provided. Material selection is a routine design choice and the claimed materials are old and well-known. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide materials and material properties as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and support for various users.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Kiziltas et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0363317). Sakamoto discloses a device as explained above including one of the molded bodies being a foam body formed from polyurethane (6P as noted above), but does not disclose polyurethane with a recycled material. Kiziltas discloses a related device including a foam body formed from polyurethane, at least in part from a recycled material (see abstract, etc.). 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 foam as taught by Kiziltas in Sakamoto’s design because this could reduce environmental impact and/or lower cost while ensuring user comfort and support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a range of related devices.
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