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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soper (US 2,324,976).
Regarding claim 1, Soper discloses a structure for a vehicle (Figs. 3-4) comprising: a first member having a first superimposed surface (base 11); and a second member (rubber pad 16) having a second superimposed surface superimposed on the first superimposed surface, and being elastically deformable (page 1, lines 19-30), wherein the second member comprises a low-elasticity portion that is easy to be elastically deformed, and a high-elasticity portion that is hard to be elastically deformed than the low-elasticity portion (Figs. 3-4; page 1, lines 19-55), one of the first superimposed surface and the second superimposed surface comprises a plurality of recesses (19a and 19b) that are open toward the other superimposed surface, and that are independent of each other without communicating with each other, the plurality of recesses comprise a plurality of large recesses having a large volume (19a), and a plurality of small recesses (19b) having a smaller volume than the volume of the plurality of large recesses, portions in which the plurality of large recesses are located form the low- elasticity portion of the second member, and portions in which the plurality of small recesses are located form the high- elasticity portion of the second member (Figs. 3-4).
The limitation “armrest” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The preamble “armrest” is merely reciting the intended use of the claimed structure and a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 3, Soper discloses the second superimposed surface of the second member (16) comprises the plurality of recesses (19a and 19b).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Soper discloses the plurality of recesses (19a and 19b) are located in a staggered pattern as a whole (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the armrest is configured to cover an opening of a storage portion of a center console” recites a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown above, Soper clearly teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed structure. Accordingly, the structure of Soper is capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 17.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kracke (US 5,013,597).
Regarding clam 1, Kracke discloses a structure for a vehicle (Figs. 1-7; abstract) comprising: a first member having a first superimposed surface (part 1); and a second member (panel 5) having a second superimposed surface superimposed on the first superimposed surface, and being elastically deformable (col. 2, lines 48-55), wherein the second member comprises a low-elasticity portion that is easy to be elastically deformed, and a high-elasticity portion that is hard to be elastically deformed than the low-elasticity portion (Figs. 1-2), one of the first superimposed surface and the second superimposed surface comprises a plurality of recesses (6 and 7) that are open toward the other superimposed surface, and that are independent of each other without communicating with each other (Figs. 1-4), the plurality of recesses comprise a plurality of large recesses having a large volume (6a, 7a and 7b), and a plurality of small recesses (6b) having a smaller volume than the volume of the plurality of large recesses (Fig. 2), portions in which the plurality of large recesses are located form the low- elasticity portion of the second member, and portions in which the plurality of small recesses are located form the high- elasticity portion of the second member (Figs. 1-2 and 7).
The limitation “armrest” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The preamble “armrest” is merely reciting the intended use of the claimed structure and a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 3, Kracke discloses the second superimposed surface of the second member (5) comprises the plurality of recesses (6 and 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Kracke discloses the plurality of recesses (6a, 6b, 7a and 7b) are located in a staggered pattern as a whole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 9, 11, 13 and 15, Kracke discloses the plurality of recesses having a truncated conical shape (col. 2, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the armrest is configured to cover an opening of a storage portion of a center console” recites a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown above, Kracke clearly teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed structure. Accordingly, the structure of Kracke is capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 17.
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 9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soper.
Soper teaches the claimed interior structure as shown above, but fails to specifically teach the plurality of recesses having a truncated conical shape. 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 shape of the recesses in Soper to have a truncated conical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kracke (US 5,013,597A).
Regarding claim 2, Kracke discloses a structure for vehicle (Figs. 1-7; abstract) comprising a first member having a first superimposed surface (part 1), and a second member having a second superimposed surface (panel 5) superimposed on the first superimposed surface, and being elastically deformable, wherein the second member comprises a low-elasticity portion that is easy to be elastically deformed, and a high-elasticity portion that is hard to be elastically deformed than the low-elasticity portion (Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 48-55), one of the first superimposed surface and the second superimposed surface comprises a plurality of recesses (6 and/or 7) that are open toward the other superimposed surface, and that are independent of each other without communicating with each other, the plurality of recesses (6b) comprise a dense portion in which a spacing between the recesses is set to be narrow (Figs. 1-2), and a sparse portion in which a spacing between the recesses (6a and/or 7a and/or 7b) is set to be wider than the spacing of the dense portion (Figs. 1-2), the dense portion forms the low-elasticity portion of the second member, and the sparse portion forms the high-elasticity portion of the second member (Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 48-55).
Kracke fails to specifically teach the plurality of recesses having shapes and volumes the same as each other.
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 recesses in Kracke to have shapes and volumes the same as each other, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of the component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore obvious. MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, the limitation “armrest” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. The preamble “armrest” is merely reciting the intended use of the claimed structure and a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 4, Kracke discloses the second superimposed surface of the second member (5) comprises the plurality of recesses (6 and 7).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Kracke discloses the plurality of recesses (6a, 6b, 7a and 7b) are located in a staggered pattern as a whole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 14 and 16, Kracke discloses the plurality of recesses can have a truncated conical shape (col. 2, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the armrest is configured to cover an opening of a storage portion of a center console” recites a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown above, Kracke teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed structure. Accordingly, the structure of Kracke is capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Soper discloses a bicycle seat designed for supporting a rider’s weight. In contrast, the claimed invention is a vehicle armrest, i.e., a component installed in a vehicle interior for supporting an occupant’s arm. Because Soper does not disclose a vehicle armrest, it fails to anticipate the claimed invention”.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “armrest” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Applicant further argues that “Kracke discloses a multi-layered sound-insulating panel for motor vehicles, primarily intended for noise reduction. In contrast, the claimed invention is a vehicle armrest, i.e., a component installed in a vehicle interior for supporting an occupant’s arm. Kracke does not disclose a vehicle armrest, nor the structural features required for supporting an occupant’s arm”.
Again, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 1-18. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “armrest” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781