DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/066,528 02/28/2025, which claims priority to JAPAN 2024-035491 03/08/2024.
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 Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
In the following limitation: “wherein a plurality of the protruding groove walls are provided in the groove length direction” it is believed there is “a plurality of protruding groove walls in the groove length direction.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-5 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.
Claim 3 recites the following which renders the claim indefinite: “both of the groove walls of the fastening groove” because there is no previous recitation of plural groove walls. Claims 4-5 are indefinite for similar reasons.
Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2022/0080866 A1)(hereinafter Matsumoto) in view of Homler US 3630572)(hereinafter Homler).
RE Claim 1: Matsumoto discloses a cushion body including a seat pad (20) and a seat cover (18) that covers the seat pad (para 0034), the cushion body comprising:
a fastening groove (grooves in 50 per para 0043-0045) that is formed on a pad back surface of the seat pad (Fig 3)(also Figs 5-6), and
a fastener (30) that is attached to an end of the seat cover (see Fig 3) and that is press-fitted into the fastening groove (30 inserted into 50),
wherein a groove wall of the fastening groove includes a protruding groove wall that protrudes so as to form a press-fit surface of the fastener (paras 0043-0045; Fig 3)(also Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B), and a recessed groove wall that is aligned with the protruding groove wall in a groove length direction and that is recessed so as to avoid abutting against the fastener (paras 0043-0045; Fig 3)(also Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the fastener attached to the seat cover via sewing. However, Homler teaches a seat assembly with a cushion and a pad secured to the cushion (abstract)(analogous art) and further teaches a fastener attached to the cover via sewing (col 2, ln 27-40). 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 Matsumoto in view of Homler such that the fastener is sewn to an end of the seat cover as taught by Homler for the advantages of secure attachment.
RE Claim 2: Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 1, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein a plurality of the protruding groove walls are provided in the groove length direction (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
RE Claim 3 (as best understood): Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 1, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein the protruding groove walls are provided on both of the groove walls of the fastening groove (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
RE Claim 4 (as best understood): Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 3, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein the protruding groove walls are provided at facing positions of both of the groove walls (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
RE Claim 5 (as best understood): Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 3, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein the protruding groove walls provided on both of the groove walls do not overlap each other in the groove length direction (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
RE Claim 6: Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 1, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein a cross-sectional width of the fastener press-fitted into the fastening groove is larger than a minimum groove width for press-fitting that is reduced by a protrusion of the protruding groove wall of the fastening groove (Fig 3),
and is smaller than a maximum groove width that is increased by a recess of the recessed groove wall (Fig 3)(compare with Applicant’s Fig 5).
RE Claim 7: Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 6, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein the fastener (30) includes, along a press-fitting direction, a plurality of arrowhead-shaped barbs that are hooked on the protruding groove wall by press-fitting into the fastening groove (para 0036)(press fit into 50).
RE Claim 8: Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 2, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein the protruding groove walls are provided on both of the groove walls of the fastening groove (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
RE Claim 9: Matsumoto as modified discloses the cushion body according to claim 2, Matsumoto further discloses
wherein a cross-sectional width of the fastener press-fitted into the fastening groove is larger than a minimum groove width for press-fitting that is reduced by a protrusion of the protruding groove wall of the fastening groove (Fig 3), and is smaller than a maximum groove width that is increased by a recess of the recessed groove wall (Fig 3)(Compare with Applicant’s Fig 5).
RE Claim 10: Matsumoto discloses a cushion body comprising:
a seat pad (20) that includes a fastening groove (grooves in 50 per para 0043-0045) on a pad back surface of the seat pad (Figs 5-6); and
a seat cover (18) that is configured to cover the seat pad (para 0034); and
a fastener (30) that is attached to an end of the seat cover (see Fig 3) and that is press-fitted into the fastening groove (30 inserted into 50),
wherein a groove wall of the fastening groove includes a protruding groove wall that protrudes so as to form a press-fit surface of the fastener (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B), and a recessed groove wall that is aligned with the protruding groove wall in a groove length direction and that is recessed so as to avoid abutting against the fastener (paras 0043-0045; Figs 6, 8, 9A, 9B).
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the fastener attached to the seat cover via sewing. However, Homler teaches a seat assembly with a cushion and a pad secured to the cushion (abstract)(analogous art) and further teaches a fastener attached to the cover via sewing (col 2, ln 27-40). 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 Matsumoto in view of Homler such that the fastener is sewn to an end of the seat cover as taught by Homler for the advantages of secure attachment.
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 assemblies with cushion bodies, seat pads, 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights