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 § 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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochs (20180215292) in view of Blanchard (6840703) and Polk et al (7416244). The reference to Ochs teaches structure substantially as claimed including a vibration isolation structure for isolating vibration in seat, the vibration isolation structure comprising: a lower assembly configured to fix a lower portion of the seat frame and fastened to a vehicle body (46); an upper assembly configured to fix an upper portion (24) of the seat frame; a plate (54) ( a washer includes a circular plate) located below and apart from the lower assembly; and a bearing unit(72) located between the upper assembly and the lower assembly, wherein the upper assembly, the bearing unit, the lower assembly, and the plate are coupled through a fastener (40) without an up-and-down play, the only difference being that there are no bearings to aid in movement and there is not a bearing/damping between the plate and lower assembly. However, the reference to Blanchard (at fig 2) teaches the use of providing bearings (16) in conjunction with a bearing unit (6) and the reference to Polk et al teaches the use of providing a bearing/damping (68) between the lower assembly and the plate (64). 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 Ochs with a reasonable expectation of success, to include bearings in conjunction with a bearing unit, as taught by Blanchard and a bearing/damping unit between the lower assembly, as taught by Polk et al 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. The amount or preset displacement values are matters of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. With respect to claims 15-18, note the fastener structures and cushion assemblies of the references used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 vibration isolation structures for support 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