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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "104" and "106" have both been used to designate the leg in both figures 1 and 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1 lines 1-2, the phrase “A leg unit for attaching a seat in a vehicle, wherein the leg unit comprises: at least one seat comprising a set of pre-installed legs” is considered to be indefinite. It is unclear if the “seat” having a leg unit is being claimed or just a “leg unit” is being claimed. Further it is unclear if a set of preinstalled legs are being claimed or at least one replacement leg(s) are being claimed.
The phrase “the corresponding at least on seat” is indefinite as it lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1 lines 5-6, the phrase “wherein each of the at least one leg comprises at least one leg sub-unit” is considered to be indefinite. It is unclear if there is a distinction between a “leg” 104 and a “leg sub-unit” 106. In paragraph #26 it describes the leg 104 comprising at least on leg sub-unit 106”. Upon inspection of figures 1 and 2 in Applicant’s drawings both terms identify the same structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marriott et al. (US Patent No. 8,123,293).
Marriott et al. disclose a seat having a leg unit comprising:
at least one seat (20) comprising a set of pre-installed legs (as best understood, see 112 second paragraph rejection above),
at least one leg is operatively coupled (see rod 40, column 3, lines 58-column 4, line 10) to the corresponding at least one seat,
wherein each of the at least one leg comprises at least one leg sub-unit,
wherein the at least one leg comprises at least three sections comprising
a base section (32),
a first section of a first pre-defined shape (34) and
a second section of a second pre-defined shape (36),
wherein the first section and the second section are welded (see column 3, line 47-52), together at the base section to obtain the at least one leg sub-unit,
wherein the at least one leg is housed on a flooring (see figure 1) inside the vehicle,
wherein the set of pre-installed legs are removed and is replaced by the corresponding at least one leg for attachment of the at least one seat in the vehicle; and
one or more set of holes (in figure 2 see the sets of holes, unnumbered, in the base plate),
wherein the at least one seat is fixed to the flooring of the vehicle upon fixing one or more fasteners in the corresponding one or more set of holes to attach the at least one seat on the flooring of the vehicle (see column 3, lines 44-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Marriott et al. disclose a mobility transit used in transportation (description of bus in column 3, line 22).
For claim 3, the at least three sections are obtained by at least two weldments (column 3, line 44-52 where three sections are described as being welded together, requiring at least two welds).
For claim 4, each of the first section (34) and the second section (36) comprises a pre-defined number of edges to obtain the first pre-defined shape (rectangular shape of first section 34 in FIG. 9) and the second pre-defined shape (rectangular shape of second section 36 in figure 9) of the first section and the second section respectively.
For claim 7, one or more set of holes are designed based on number of the at least one seat (the unnumbered sets of holes for fastening shown in figure 1 are designed based on mounting a bus two seat bench as seen in figure 6).
For claim 8, the one or more set of holes are designed on at least one of a front end, a rear end or a combination thereof on the base section of each of the at least one leg sub-unit,
wherein the one or more fasteners can be fixed at any desired location on the flooring in the vehicle via the one or more set of holes to attach the corresponding at least one seat (see unnumbered holes at front of base section in figure 1, note the seats positioned and fastened at multiple locations).
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 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriott et al. as applied above in view of Ishikawa et al. (US Patent No. 6,422,526).
Marriot et al. lack the leg first section pre-defined shape and second section pre-defined shape obtained by bending on a single plate for each of the first section and second section of the leg.
Ishikawa discloses a support leg 10 formed by bending, see column 4, lines 23-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Marriott et al. to form the leg first section (34) and leg second section (36) by respectively bending a plate as taught by Ishikawa in order to reduce production costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614