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 § 102
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, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Law (4981324). The reference to Law teaches structure as claimed including an air guide assembly (56) and a cushion cover (10), wherein the air guide assembly (56) is installed on the cushion cover (10); the cushion cover (10) is used for detachable connection to the backrest and/or headrest (76), the cushion cover (10) is provided with a cover cavity, the cover cavity has an opening (fig 3), and the air guide assembly (56) is installed inside the cover cavity.
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.
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) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (4981324). The reference to Law teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a backrest ventilation device. The use of conventional attaching structures such as sewing, clips, adhesives, hook and loop, buckles, snaps use in the same well known intended purpose would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. Note the power source as shown in fig 3 and paragraph 16.
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law(4981324) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kottemann (3030145). The reference to Law teaches structure substantially as claimed including a cushion cover the only difference being that the cover does not include a headrest cover. However, the reference to Kottemann (at least fig 1 at 7) teaches the use of providing a head cover as additional connection structure to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Law with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a headrest cover, as taught by Kottemann since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including air circulating covers for seating structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights