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 .
IDS
An extensively voluminous IDSes without English translations was provided. Given the 1.105 below, the examiner conducted only a cursory of the documents.
Requirement for Information Under 37C.F.R. 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
As set forth by 37 C.F.F 1.56, the assumption by the examiner is that all the documents listed in the IDSes filed 03/05/2025, & 03/13/2025 therein are material to the patentability of the claims. However, due to the voluminous nature of the Foreign Patent Documents without English Translations and that many of those documents do not even have figures and/or do not have figures that show mesh arrangements to ascertain the general nature of the cited document, and many don’t appear materially relevant to patentability of the claims, there is an undue burden on the Office, and the examiner is unable to ascertain from disclosures of how any and/or ALL of these foreign patent documents are relevantly material to the patentability of the claimed invention.
As such, in response to this requirement, Applicant, Applicant’s representatives and Assignee are pleased asked provide the title and citation of each Foreign Patent Document listed in the IDSes filed 03/05/2025 & 03/13/2025 and an accompanying English Translation of relevant sections of each document thereof as they relate to the claimed invention, in particular “a unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands with an aperture formed therein; and a trim cord inserted within the aperture of the unitary mesh; and wherein the trim cord is installed into the aperture by one or more of: the trim cord is inserted into the aperture, the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands, or a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is welded to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands at least partially over the aperture.”.
What Foreign Patent Document listed in the IDSes filed 03/05/2025 & 03/13/2025 without English translations have features directed to the equivalent of the limitations of the "a unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands with an aperture formed therein; and a trim cord inserted within the aperture of the unitary mesh; and wherein the trim cord is installed into the aperture by one or more of: the trim cord is inserted into the aperture, the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands, or a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is welded to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands at least partially over the aperture", its synonyms and equivalent nomenclature, derivations and alternate embodiments that may be considered applicable prior art?
Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.
Applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. A statement that the item is “unknown or not readily available” is inapplicable in this situation because (1) the applicant is in possession of the information that was listed in the IDS, and (2) pursuant to applicant’s duties under §§ 1.4 and 11.18, applicant should have made a reasonable inquiry into the documents before filing them with the Office for consideration by the examiner. Further, providing a blanket statement, such as, “the whole portion of the document caused it to be listed” for each document in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/05/2025, & 03/13/2025 would also not be acceptable. As explained above, a partial review of the documents cited reveals that many have no relevance to the instant application and, therefore, it cannot be said that the “whole portion” of these documents caused them to be listed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "38" and "64" and “70” have all been used to designate aperture.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the trim cord is welded to a region of the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands within a trench formed in the unitary mesh” which is indefinite, because Para. [0028] of the instant specification discloses that “the aperture 38 is a slot or trench 38” so it is unclear if there is an additional trench in addition to the aperture in claim 1 or if it’s the same aperture.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (JP 2001/061607 A) in view of Shimizu (JP 2006/130715 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takeshi discloses an assembly comprising:
a unitary mesh (fig. 2) with an aperture formed therein (opening 11, fig. 2); and
a trim cord (second wire 25, figs. 2 & 7) inserted within the aperture of the unitary mesh (as shown in figs. 1-6); and
wherein the trim cord is installed into the aperture by one or more of: the trim cord is
inserted into the aperture, the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands, or a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is welded to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands at least partially over the aperture (the trim cord is inserted into the aperture chosen; as shown in fig. 2, the second wire 25 is inserted into the opening 11).
Takeshi does not appear to specifically disclose that the unitary mesh Is made of expanded thermoplastic resin strands.
However, Shimizu is in the field of an interior material and its molding method (Abstract) and teaches a cushion layer that is injected with a molten thermoplastic resin (p. 2, para. 3, lines 1-3, “the present invention provides a skin material laminated with a fabric, a cushion layer, and a back base fabric from the front side in a mold, and then injects a molten thermoplastic resin to heat the skin material and heat”).
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 invention of Takeshi such that the cushion was formed from a [unitary mesh] of expanded thermoplastic resin as taught by Shimizu, since a cushion made from thermoplastic resin is chosen for comfort, durability, and manufacturability.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the trim cord is [adhered] to a region of the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands (as modified above claim 1) within a trench formed in the unitary mesh (as shown in fig. 2), but does not appear to specifically disclose that the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh within a trench.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method to a region of the unitary mesh is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim wire via welding since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 3, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and Takeshi further discloses wherein the trim cord is [adhered] to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands (Para. [0004], “the second sire is firmly adhered to the resin foam. It is extremely difficult to separate the wire from the resin foam”; as shown in fig. 2), but does not appear to specifically disclose that the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method to a region of the unitary mesh is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim wire via welding since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 4, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the trim cord is welded without adhesive.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method without adhesive is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim cord via welding without adhesive since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 5, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and Takeshi further discloses wherein a segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is [attached] to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands at least partially over the aperture (as shown in figs. 1-6), but does not appear to specifically disclose that the thermoplastic resin strand is welded to the unitary mesh.
The examiner takes Official Notice that welding a segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands to a unitary mesh is a well-known form of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the thermoplastic resin strands to the unitary mesh since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 6, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and Takeshi further discloses wherein the aperture of the unitary mesh has an inner dimension, and wherein the trim cord has a cross section that is smaller than the inner dimension of the aperture (as shown in fig. 2, since the trim cord [i.e., second wire 25] lies inside of the aperture [i.e., opening 11] of the unitary mesh, the trim cord has a cross section that is small than the inner dimension of the aperture).
Regarding claim 7, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the cross section of the trim cord is larger than three millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify trim cord of Takeshi such that it is larger than three millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would provide structural reinforcement to the cushion and improve durability.
Regarding claim 8, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the cross section of the trim cord is smaller than five millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify trim cord of Takeshi such that it is smaller than five millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would cut down on manufacturing costs by reducing the use of materials.
Regarding claim 9, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the inner dimension of the aperture in the unitary mesh is at least five millimeters larger than the cross section of the trim cord.
However, 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 inner dimension of the aperture in the unitary mesh of Takeshi such that it is at least five millimeters larger than the cross section of the trim cord, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would ensure a secure, stable, and long-lasting fit.
Regarding claim 10, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the inner dimension of the aperture in the unitary mesh is smaller than ten millimeters.
However, 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 inner dimension of the aperture of Takeshi such that it is smaller than ten millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Doing so would ensure a small opening such that it keeps the trim cord securely in place, maintaining the structural integrity of the trim.
Regarding claim 11, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the inner dimension of the aperture in the unitary mesh is 100-166 percent larger than the cross section of the trim cord.
However, 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 aperture in the unitary mesh of Takeshi such that it is 100-166 percent larger than the cross section of the trim cord, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would ensure proper cord placement and prevent the cord from being damaged.
Regarding claim 13, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and Takeshi further discloses further comprising a trim cover (Para. [0011], “skin material 4 covering the front side of the mesh cushion material 3 and the like”; skin material 4, fig. 2), a wire (first wire 15, fig. 2) [attached] to the trim cover (as shown in fig. 2), and at least one ring to attach the trim cord to the wire (hog ring 27, fig. 2).
However, modified Takeshi does not appear to specifically disclose that the wire is sewn to the trim cover.
The examiner takes Official Notice that sewing the wire to the trim cover is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sew the wire to the trim cover since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 15, Takeshi discloses an assembly comprising:
a unitary mesh (as shown in fig. 2) with an aperture formed therein (opening 11, fig. 2); and
a trim cord (second wire 25, figs. 2 & 7) inserted within the aperture of the unitary
mesh (figs. 1-6), wherein a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is [attached] to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands at least partially over the aperture (as shown in figs. 1-6).
Takeshi does not appear to specifically disclose that the unitary mesh Is made of expanded thermoplastic resin strands. Furthermore, Takeshi does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands is welded to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin strands.
However, Shimizu is in the field of an interior material and its molding method (Abstract) and teaches a cushion layer that is injected with a molten thermoplastic resin (p. 2, para. 3, lines 1-3, “the present invention provides a skin material laminated with a fabric, a cushion layer, and a back base fabric from the front side in a mold, and then injects a molten thermoplastic resin to heat the skin material and heat”).
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 invention of Takeshi such that the cushion was formed from a [unitary mesh] of expanded thermoplastic resin as taught by Shimizu, since a cushion made from thermoplastic resin is chosen for comfort, durability, and manufacturability.
The examiner takes Official Notice that welding a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin to a second segment of expanded thermoplastic resin is a well-known form of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld a first segment of expanded thermoplastic resin to a second segment of thermoplastic resin since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 16, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the trim cord is [attached] to the unitary mesh of expanded thermoplastic resin strands, but does not appear to specifically disclose that the trim cord is welded to the unitary mesh.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method to a region of the unitary mesh is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim wire via welding since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 17, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 15, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the trim cord is welded without adhesive.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method without adhesive is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim cord via welding without adhesive since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 18, Takeshi discloses an assembly comprising:
a unitary mesh (fig. 2); and
a trim cord (second wire 25, figs. 2 & 7) attached to the unitary mesh (fig. 2), wherein the trim cord is [attached] to the unitary mesh (fig. 1-6).
Takeshi does not appear to specifically disclose that the unitary mesh Is made of expanded thermoplastic resin strands.
However, Shimizu is in the field of an interior material and its molding method (Abstract) and teaches a cushion layer that is injected with a molten thermoplastic resin (p. 2, para. 3, lines 1-3, “the present invention provides a skin material laminated with a fabric, a cushion layer, and a back base fabric from the front side in a mold, and then injects a molten thermoplastic resin to heat the skin material and heat”).
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 invention of Takeshi such that the cushion was formed from a [unitary mesh] of expanded thermoplastic resin as taught by Shimizu, since a cushion made from thermoplastic resin is chosen for comfort, durability, and manufacturability.
Furthermore, the examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method to a region of the unitary mesh is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim wire via welding since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 19, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 18, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the trim cord is welded without adhesive.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching the trim cord by a welding method without adhesive is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the trim cord via welding without adhesive since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Shimizu as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, respectively, and further in view of Baisch et al. (US 2018/0229634 A1), hereinafter Baisch.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claims 1 and 18, respectively, and further discloses a trim cover (Para. [0011], “skin material 4 covering the front side of the mesh cushion material 3 and the like”; skin material 4, fig. 2), but does not appear to specifically disclose at least one clip sewn to the trim cover, wherein the clip is sized to receive the trim cord and retain the trim cover to the unitary mesh.
However, Baisch is in the field of a trim clip (Abstract) and teaches a trim cover (trim cover assembly 22, fig. 2), and at least one clip (clip 24, figs. 1-3), wherein the clip is sized to receive the trim cord and retain the trim cord and retain the trim cover to the unitary mesh (as shown in figs. 1-3).
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 trim attachment of Takeshi such that it was a clip as taught by Baisch, in order to provide easy installation and removal.
Furthermore, the examiner takes Official Notice that sewing the clip to the trim cover is a well-known way to reinforce the cushion assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sew the clip to the trim cover since it is an old and well known commercially established technique that’s readily available.
Regarding claim 14, Takeshi in view of Shimizu discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a trim cover (Para. [0011], “skin material 4 covering the front side of the mesh cushion material 3 and the like”; skin material 4, fig. 2), but does not appear to specifically disclose at least one fastener sewn into the trim cover, wherein the fastener is sized to receive the trim cord and retain the trim cover to the unitary mesh.
However, Baisch is in the field of a trim clip (Abstract) and teaches a trim cover (trim cover assembly 22, fig. 2), and at least one fastener sewn into the trim cover, wherein the fastener is sized to receive the trim cord and retain the trim cover to the unitary mesh (Para. [0019], “[e] Each engagement feature 34 may be provided at any suitable location, and may be attached to the trim cover 30 in any suitable manner, such as with stitching and/or an adhesive. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the engagement feature 34 is molded onto an intermediate panel 35, such as a cloth (e.g., non-woven material) panel or other panel (e.g., flexible panel), that is sewn or otherwise attached to ends of adjacent trim cover sections 32”; as shown in figs. 1-5).
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 invention of Takeshi such that there was at least one fastener sewn in to the trim cover as taught by Baisch, in order to securely attach the trim cover to the unitary mesh while containing the trim cord.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights