DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 12/22/25
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending.
Claim 7 has been withdrawn.
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 1-7 and 21-32 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 1 recites “a cushion track system,” “a track system” and “the track.” The claim does not particularly point out which of “the track(s)” is being claimed. Appropriate characterization or differentiation of the two tracks is required for clarity.
Claims 23 and 24 appear to recite the same cushion track system as amended claim 1 without substantive additional limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 21-24, 29, 30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salcedo (WO 2022119562) (“Salcedo”) in view of Akaike (US 2020/0238873) or Reikeras et al. (US6120099) (“Reikeras”). Salcedo teaches a seat comprising: a seatback (fig. 7: 107); a cushion (fig. 7: 630 is a headrest cushion, as depicted in fig. 21); a screen (fig. 7: 134/640); and a track system including a rail (fig. 7: 118) and an attachment mechanism (figs. 3 and 7: sliders 120 and the fasteners/bolts shown for attaching 636 to the sliders), wherein the cushion is secured to the seatback via the track system and the cushion is configured to move along the seatback in a vertical direction; wherein, in a first position, the screen is stowed within the cushion, and in a second position, the screen is deployed from the cushion (fig. 7 shows that 134/640 is deployed from storage within the cushion along rails 668).
Salcedo does not teach wherein the cushion includes a cushion track system having a track fully contained within the cushion and the screen is deployed along the track. However, Akaike and Reikeras teach a cushion (Akaike, fig. 1: 3; Reikeras, fig. 1: 2) having a screen (Akaike, fig. 1: 4; Reikeras, fig. 1: 6, 7) which is deployed along a track fully contained within the cushion (Akaike, fig. 6: 13, 4C; Reikeras, fig. 4b: 16, 17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a curved cushion and screen track mechanism housed in the cushion in place of the headrest of Salcedo on the vertical moving mount in order to provide the desired shape and comfort to a user in the seat.
As concerns claim 2, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the cushion is attached to a frontal surface of the seatback (fig. 7).
As concerns claim 3, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the attachment mechanism is a ball and pin arrangement, a screw, a fastener, a bolt, a clip, or combinations thereof (figs. 3 and 7 show that the attachment is a bolt or fastener between the slider and headrest).
As concerns claim 4, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the track system includes a plurality of rails and a plurality of attachment mechanisms (fig. 7 shows 2 rails and attachment mechanisms).
As concerns claim 5, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the rail is arranged along the seatback in a vertical direction (fig. 7).
As concerns claim 8, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein, in a first position, the screen is stowed within the cushion, and in a second position, the screen is deployed from the cushion (Akaika, fig. 1; Reikeras, fig. 1).
As concerns claim 21, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the screen is configured to serve as at least one of a privacy barrier, a hygiene guard, or an additional surface for supporting an appendage of a passenger (Akaika, fig. 1: 4 and Reikeras, fig. 1: 6, 7 act as a privacy barrier or head support).
As concerns claim 22, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the screen is deployable from the cushion in at least one of a left direction, a right direction (Akaika, fig. 1 and Reikeras, fig. 1 show the screens deploys in a left or right direction), an upward direction, or a downward direction.
As concerns claims 23 and 24, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the cushion further comprises a cushion track system configured to guide deployment of the screen (Akaike, fig. 6; Reikeras, fig. 4b)).
As concerns claims 29 and 30, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the screen comprises a planar, curved surface (as shown in Akaike and Reikeras fig. 1).
As concerns claim 32, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of the cushion and/or screen includes a composite material, a polymer or a metal (Salcedo, paragraph 0044).
As concerns claim 33, Salcedo does not expressly teach the dimensions of the cushion. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try a width from 4 to 20 inches in order to properly fit the seat or the support desired for the user.
Claim(s) 6 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salcedo, as modified, in view of Shingne et al. (US 2022/0072982) (“Shingne”). Salcedo, as modified, does not expressly teach a release mechanism for moving the cushion via the track system. However, Shingne teaches a similar headrest/lumbar support which is movable vertically relative to the seat back along a track/rail having a lock (fig. 3: 300; paragraph 0052) to maintain the support in the desired position. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a known lock/release mechanism on the rail of Salcedo in order to assist in maintaining the support in the desired position.
As concerns claim 25, Salcedo, as modified, does not teach wherein the cushion is secured to the seatback by a press-fit or friction-based attachment. However, Shingne teaches a cushion which is vertically movable on the seatback and is secured by a friction-based attachment (paragraph 0051: “For instance, the bracket 210 and guide track 200 may comprise a rack and pinion. In another example, the bracket may be configured as a low friction stud that slides within the groove of the guide track;” paragraph 0052: “For example, the lock 300 may comprise a friction lock configured to press against the seatback 120 when activated.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a friction-based/press attachment to move and secure the cushion to the desired position, in order to provide the desired ease of movement and locking of the cushion.
As concerns claim 26, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the release mechanism includes a button, a lever, or an actuator (Shingne, paragraph 0052: the lock 300 comprises a friction lock to press against the seatback. The friction lock may be considered at least an actuator).
As concerns claim 27, Salcedo, as modified, teaches wherein the release mechanism is located on the seatback proximate to the cushion (Shingne, the release is a friction lock within the track system and is therefore proximate the seatback and cushion).
As concerns claim 28, Salcedo, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein the release mechanism includes a plurality of release mechanisms located on different portions of the seat. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a lock/release mechanism 300 on each of the two tracks of Salcedo (thereby a plurality on different portions of the seat) in order to provide the desired strength of locking for the movable cushion.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salcedo, as modified, in view of Lievestro et al. (US 9033420) (“Lievestro”). Salcedo, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein the cushion comprises a foam material. However, Lievestro teaches an aircraft seat cushion comprising foam material (Col. 4, lines 22-26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a foam material as the covering for the cushion in order to provide the desired comfort to the occupant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provides the Akaike or Reikeras as a secondary reference to teach a track within the cushion, as necessitated by amendment. Further, while Applicant’s arguments regarding Salcedo not teaching a cushion are not considered persuasive, the combination with Akaike or Reikeras also teaches a headrest cushion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636