DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/008,504 filed 01/02/2025 which claims priority to JP 2024-00440 01/16/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-16 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
RE Claim 1: The phrase "belt-like" renders the claim indefinite? What does it mean to be belt-like? Does this refer to the shape, material, function, etc.? To what degree is the member belt-like?
Also, the following limitation in claim 1 reads as a method step in an apparatus claim: “the fixing structure achieving a state where the vehicle seat is covered with the trim cover to be fixed.”
Claim 6 recites the following limitation: “the rigid material is any one of a sewing thread…” which renders the claim indefinite because sewing thread is known to be a flexible material which can bend and deform easily under a small force. As best understood, the claim requires a material which resists deformation to some degree, even if very minor.
RE Claim 10: How is the insertion hole extending in a longitudinal direction of the belt like member if it is “provided in a portion of the trim cover other than the belt-like member” per claim 1?
Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Natsume (US 2025/0134277 A1)(hereinafter Natsume).
RE Claim 1: Natsume discloses a fixing structure for a trim cover in a vehicle seat, the fixing structure comprising:
a belt-like (2) member protruding from the trim cover (12);
an engagement portion (portion of 3) provided in a portion of the trim cover other than the belt-like member;
an insertion portion (2A, C, D) provided in either one of an end portion of the belt-like member and the engagement portion; and
an insertion hole (3A with A1 on each end) provided in another of the end portion of the belt-like member and the engagement portion to allow the insertion portion to be inserted therein and maintain a state where the insertion portion is inserted therein, the fixing structure achieving a state where the vehicle seat is covered with the trim cover to be fixed (para 0055-0056).
RE Claim 2: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion portion is formed in a shape protruding in a width direction of the belt-like member or the engagement portion (Figs 1-2).
RE Claim 3: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 2,
wherein the insertion portion has a substantially rectangular shape (Fig 2; para 0027).
RE Claim 4: The fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 2,
wherein the insertion portion has at least a portion thereof which is folded back and superimposed (para 0026-0027).
RE Claim 5: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 2,
wherein the insertion portion includes a rigid material (resin 2A) which increases a rigidity of the insertion portion (paras 0026-0027).
RE Claim 6: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 5,
wherein the rigid material is any one of a sewing thread, a welding material, an adhesive material, and nonwoven fabric (“resin plate is sewn to the plate attachment” per para 0026).
RE Claim 7: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the belt-like member (2) has at least a portion thereof formed in a tapered shape having a width which decreases with increasing distance from the insertion portion (Fig2)(paras 0027-0027)(specifically see trapezoidal shape approximated by portion 2D).
RE Claim 8: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the belt-like member has at least a portion thereof formed in a tapered shape having a width which increases with increasing distance from the insertion portion (Fig 3).
RE Claim 9: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion hole has a slit shape (Figs 1-2).
RE Claim 10: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 9,
wherein the insertion hole is formed so as to extend along a longitudinal direction of the belt-like member in the state where the insertion portion is inserted in the insertion hole (Figs 1-2).
RE Claim 12: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion hole of the engagement portion has a substantially circular or ellipsoidal shape (A1 at each end).
RE Claim 13: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion hole of the engagement portion has a substantially rectangular shape (portion 3A in between each of A1)(note: “has” is open ended, the claim does not require the shape of the entire engagement portion to be substantially rectangular).
RE Claim 15: Natsume a vehicle seat (para 0055-0056) comprising the fixing structure according to claim 1 (previously discussed).
RE Claim 16: Natsume discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 15,
wherein the fixing structure is applied to a seat cushion (pad 11 per para 0002-0003, 0022)(para 0055-56).
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.
Claim 11, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Selverstone (US 1934615)(hereinafter Selverstone).
RE Claim 11: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 10.
Natsume discloses wherein the insertion hole has an eyelet portion provided in at least one end thereof (Figs 1-2). Natsume does not explicitly teach wherein the insertion hole has a metallic eyelet portion provided in at least one end thereof.
However, Selverstone teaches a covering on a seat structure (analogous art) and further teaches use of a metallic eyelet in an insertion hole (grommet page 1, ln 105 – page 2, ln 10).
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 Natsume in view of Selverstone such that the insertion hole has a metallic eyelet portion provided in at least one end thereof as taught by Selverstone for the advantages of durability.
Claim 14, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan (US 2021/0112994 A1)(hereinafter Pan).
RE Claim 14: Natsume discloses the fixing structure for the trim cover in the vehicle seat according to claim 1.
Natsume does not explicitly teach wherein an outer periphery of the insertion hole has a reinforcing seam.
However, Pan teaches a cover for a seat (analogous art). Pan further teaches a reinforcing seam along an edge portion (para 0028, 0035).
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 Natsume in view of Pan such that an outer periphery of the insertion hole has a reinforcing seam taught by Pan for the advantages of durability.
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 includes various seat arrangements with trim or covers attached.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights