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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 14, 16, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 10, lines 5-7, applicant claims “brackets fastened to respective sections, respectively, of lateral end portions of the seating base in such a manner that the supports maintain rigidities thereof in a state of being rotated outward”. Applicant’s specification gives no description of how the brackets maintain the rigidity of the supports in a state of being rotated outward.
In claim 14, in lines 7 and 8, applicant claims “a frame rotatable by itself and reclinable by a predetermined angle in an adjustable manner”. Applicant’s specification and drawings give no description of what structure is used to accomplish the rotation and reclining of the frame.
In claim 22, lines 1 and 2, applicant claims, “the seating base is fastened to the frame in a snap-fit way”. Applicant’s specification gives no description of how the snap-fit is accomplished.
In claim 24, applicant claims “a position of a frame of the seat is adjustable in a manner that the frame is moved along a rail installed within the cabin”. Applicant’s specification and drawings give no description of what structure is used to accomplish the adjustability of the frame along the rail.
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 20 and 21 are 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 20 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “both lateral surfaces” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear from the claim language what structure the lateral surfaces are part of.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deptola (German Patent Publication 10216904) in view of Mourou et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0146216).
Re claim 1, Deptola discloses a purpose-built vehicle (PBV) comprising a seat (1, 2), a position of the seat being movable inside of the vehicle (the base) and a seating base (2a, 2b) of the seat being attachable and detachable (the detached position shown in figure 3); wherein the seating base of the seat is configured to have such a rotatable structure (5a, 6a, figure 3) that the seating base is detached from a frame (receptacles 8, 9) of the seat and then is possibly fitted in place in an arbitrary space (as detailed in the provided machine translation, the seat is capable of being used outside of the vehicle in an arbitrary space; it is also capable of being used anywhere where the seat will fit including inside a vehicle).
Re claim 5, the seating base is configured to have such an integrated structure that three surfaces (the top surface and the perpendicular side front and rear side surface of 2 in figure 1) thereof are connected to each other.
Re claim 8, the seating base has such a fitting structure that seating on the seating base is possible by rotating supports (5 and 6, figure 3) that are capable of supporting at least two surfaces of the seating base, respectively.
Re claim 9, the seating base comprises supports (5 and 6, figure 3) connected to both lateral surfaces, respectively, of the seating base in such a manner that the supports are rotatable with respect thereto, a hinge shaft (4c, 4c) rotatably connecting the supports to the both lateral surfaces, respectively, of the seating base, and fixation portions (8 and 9, figure 1) positioned on respective sections, respectively, of lateral end portions of the seating base in such a manner that the supports maintain rigidities thereof in a state of being rotated outward.
Re claim 21, Deptola discloses the seating base (2a, 2b) is detached from the frame (8, 9), the seating base comprises supports rotatable with respect to both lateral surfaces, a hinge shaft (4C, 4D) rotatably connecting the supports to lateral surfaces and fixation portions that keep the supports fitted in place in a state of being rotated outward to form a three- or four-point support (see the annotated figures below and the last paragraph of the provided machine translation before the claims listing which describes the supports being fixed in place).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
609
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-13, 21, and 23, Deptola does not disclose a windshield selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle, the windshield comprising an electrochromic image region, shading of the electrochromic image region being adjustable in such a manner that, according to application of electric power, an image is selectively presented toward the inside and the outside of the vehicle, and a non-transparent image region extending from a lower end of the electrochromic image region, the windshield being divided into an internal display region presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle, and the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each other.
Mourou et al. teaches a windshield (18) selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle (see paragraph 0019 which describes this functionality), the windshield comprising an electrochromic image region (A1), shading of the electrochromic image region being adjustable in such a manner that, according to application of electric power, an image is selectively presented toward the inside and the outside of the vehicle, and a non-transparent image region (A4 is capable of being non transparent depending on what image is displayed, for example a dark image) extending from a lower end of the electrochromic image region, the windshield being divided into an internal display region (A1 is capable of presenting an image toward an inside of the vehicle) presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region (A3 is capable of presenting an image toward an exterior of the vehicle) presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle, and the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each other (the first circuit and the second circuit, 50 and 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a purpose-built vehicle, such as that disclosed by Deptola, to have a windshield selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle, the windshield comprising an electrochromic image region, shading of the electrochromic image region being adjustable in such a manner that, according to application of electric power, an image is selectively presented toward the inside and the outside of the vehicle, and a non-transparent image region extending from a lower end of the electrochromic image region, the windshield being divided into an internal display region presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle, and the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each other, as taught by Mourou et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase driver awareness of vehicle systems and operation (see Mourou et al., paragraph 0003)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deptola (German Patent Publication 10216904) in view of Mourou et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0146216), as applied above to 1, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13, and further in view of Lozano Omana et al. (US Patent 11,345,264).
Deptola and Mourou et al. disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the seating base being made of high-rigidity carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP).
Lozano Omana et al. teaches the use of CFRP in vehicle seats (see column 3, lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a seating base, such as that disclosed by Deptola in view of Mourou et al. above, to have the seating base be made of high-rigidity carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), as taught by Lozano Omana et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as an matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosbach et al. (US Patent 11,130,536) in view of Mourou et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0146216) and Lozano Omana et al. (US Patent 11,345,264).
Hosbach et al. discloses a purpose-built vehicle comprising a skateboard (118, figure 1) constituting a bottom surface of a vehicle body; a cabin (14 figure 1) combined with an upper end portion of the skateboard and having a riding space (the space in the front of the vehicle with seats in figure 1), a separate accommodation space (the cargo space behind the seats in figure 1), and a seat (174). A seating base (2A, 2B) is fastened to a frame (8, 9) in a detachable manner thereby providing a seating space.
Hosbach et al. does not disclose a windshield selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle; a position of the seat being movable in the riding space within the cabin, wherein the windshield is divided into an internal display region presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle, the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each other, and a position of the seat being movable in the riding space within the cabin..
Mourou et al. teaches a windshield (18) selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle, wherein the windshield is divided into an internal display region (A1) presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle (A1 is capable of performing this function) and an external display region (A4) presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle (A4 is capable of performing this function), the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths (the first circuit and second circuit 52) that are separated from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a purpose-built vehicle, such as that disclosed by Hosbach et al., to have the windshield selectively presenting an image toward the inside and the outside of a vehicle; and a seat, a position of the seat being movable in the riding space within the cabin, wherein the windshield is divided into an internal display region presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle, the internal display region and the external display region have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each other, as taught by Mourou et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase driver awareness of vehicle systems and operation (see Mourou et al., paragraph 0003).
Lozano Omana et al. teaches a position of a seat (30) being movable in a riding space within a cabin (by rotation for example, see column 2, lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a purpose-built vehicle, such as that disclosed above, to have a position of the seat be movable in a riding space within a cabin, as taught by a position of the seat being movable in the riding space within the cabin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to account for passengers of different sizes and to make the seat more comfortable for the passengers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to an upper end surface of the seating base having such a curved structure that the upper end surface thereof is increasingly inclined upward toward the front, and a lateral surface of the seating base is configured to have such a curved structure that the lateral surface thereof is increasing expanded outward toward a downward direction in order for a user’s calves to rest on the lateral surface thereof. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-13, Applicant asserts that Deptola dos not disclose that the seat base is detachable from the frame of the seat. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has indicated that the “frame of the seat” is being interpreted as structures 8 and 9 in figure 1. Applicant’s “frame of the seat” is not further structurally defined so it is the examiner’s position that structures 8 and 9 can be interpreted as the frame of the seat which the seat base 2a and 2b can be detached from.
Additionally, with respect claim 11, applicant asserts that Deptola in view of Mourou fails to disclose “an electrochromic image region” whose shading is adjustable such that, with electric power, “an image is selectively presented toward the inside and the outside of the vehicle, “and a non-transparent image region extending from a lower end of the electrochromic image region”.
First applicant argues that the combination posited by the examiner fails to disclose a non-transparent image region. Applicant argus that since portion A4’s non-transparency is dependent on the image that is displayed on A4 and is not an inherent property of that portion, it is not “a non-transparent region” as required by the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim language only requires a “non-transparent region”. It does not exclude the possibility that the non-transparent region can be changed to a transparent region or require that the non-transparent region be an “inherent property” as suggested by applicant’s remarks.
Next applicant argues that the non-transparent region does not extend from the lower end of the electrochromic region. Applicant argues that “the record identifies no disclosure in Mourou that A4 is contiguously positioned from the lower edge of Mourou’s electrochromic region A1”. The examiner does agree that region A4 is not contiguously positioned from the lower edge of region A1, however, applicant’s claim language does not require such a limitation. It is the examiner’s position that applicant’s claim language is broad enough to include the structure identified in the rejection above since A4 is positioned and extends from the lower end of the region A1 instead of, for example the upper end of the electrochromatic region or a side end of the electrochromatic region.
With regard to claims 18 and 19, applicant argues that Mourou’s windshield is not divided into an internal display region presenting the image toward the inside of the vehicle and an external display region presenting the image toward the outside of the vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mourou’s windshield is divided into several separate regions, A1-A4, all of which are capable of displaying both internal and external displays. Applicant’s claim language does not require that any of these regions be solely for the purpose displaying of displaying only external images or only internal images as applicant suggests. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the device of Mourou anticipates the claimed invention as detailed in the rejection above.
Furthermore, applicant asserts that Mourou fails to disclose the that the internal and external display regions have respective electricity application paths that are separated from each as required by claim 19. As shown by figure 2, the internal and external display regions have separate electricity paths 50 and 52 shown in figure 2. Separated by physical distance as shown in the figure, electricity flowing along these paths must be separated and thus the claim limitation is satisfied by the shown structure.
Finally, applicant argues the Office has failed to establish a proper rationale for combining the references. Applicant argues that merely asserting that Mourou’s display helps increase driver awareness does not explain how or why a POSITA would re-architect the windshield of Hosbach into two structural display regions (internal vs. external) with isolated application paths. However, as pointed out above, it is Mourou that teaches the claimed structure. Hosbach does not teach the details of a windshield and Mourou teaches a detailed windshield with the benefits described by the examiner and therefore would be motivated use the windshield of Mourou with the purpose built vehicle of Hosbach for increasing driver awareness as stated in the rejection above.
Applicant also argues that rationale provided by the Office does not explain why providing seat position movability within the riding space would be obvious. However, the examiner’s rationale for combining the references to provide seat position movability within the riding space is to “account for passengers of different sizes and to make the seat more comfortable for the passengers”. This rationale appears in the final lines of the recitation of claims 18 and 19 in connection with the use of the Lozano Mana et al. reference in the combination of references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
August 1, 2025