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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (US 2024/0253547) (“Mueller”). Mueller discloses a frame part (fig. 2: 400) installed in a seat back and having an opening (fig. 3: 410) into which a striker (fig. 1: G) fixed to a vehicle body is inserted; and a latch fork (fig. 3: 300) rotatably installed in the frame part and configured to open or close the opening so as to restrict or release the striker within the opening; and wherein the frame part comprises a steel plate (fig. 2: 122, 124; paragraph 0043) configured to allow at least one portion of the latch fork to be insertion-fitted thereinto to support the latch fork in forward and rearward directions of a vehicle, when the latch fork closes the opening
As concerns claim 2, Mueller discloses wherein the frame part comprises: a main plate (fig. 2: 402) configured to allow the opening to be formed therein; and a steel plate (fig. 2: 124) configured to be coupled to the main plate with the latch fork interposed therebetween, wherein the steel plate has a first latch fork support (fig. 2: upper bolt S and opening 144) and a second latch fork support (fig. 2: lower bolt S and opening 144) spaced apart from each other in one direction, and wherein the latch fork is inserted between the first latch fork support and the second latch fork support to be fixed to the steel plate in one direction, when the latch fork closes the opening.
As concerns claim 4, Mueller discloses wherein the main plate has an outer wall portion, which is an outer periphery thereof protruding toward the steel plate, wherein the outer wall portion has a pair of spaced ends (fig. 3: 408; spaced apart portions of the opening, as shown in present application) spaced apart from each other by a space connected to the opening, and wherein when the latch fork is deformed by a vehicle collision, the spaced ends support the deformed latch fork (the housing supports the latch fork during a collision and deformation).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Borlodan (US 12024073). Mueller teaches a latch cover (fig. 3: 404) having a striker insertion portion (fig. 3: 426) configured to allow the striker to be inserted thereinto and wherein the steel plate (fig. 2: 122) has a cover support configured to surround the striker insertion portion.
Muller does not teach at least one elastic piece protruding toward the striker; and a damper installed in the latch cover and configured to support the elastic piece toward the striker. However, Bordolan teaches a similar latch locking mechanism having an elastic piece (fig. 2: 7) protruding toward the striker and a damper (fig. 2: 6, 8) installed in the latch cover (fig. 2: G) configured to support the elastic piece toward the striker. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide an elastic piece and dampening means on the latch cover of Mueller in order to provide support during an accident, deformation or in order to prevent rattling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of Bordolan and Mueller fail to teach:
a latch fork insert member, and a latch fork outer layer section configured to cover the latch fork insert member and having a lower rigidity than the latch fork insert member, and wherein the latch fork is formed as the latch fork outer layer section at which the first latch fork support and the second latch fork support contact each other is cut, and the first latch fork support and the second latch fork support contact the latch fork insert member; or
a first locking part configured to be recessed at a lower end of the latch fork and allows the striker to be inserted thereinto; a second locking part configured to be recessed at a lower end of the latch fork, spaced apart from the first locking part in a forward direction of a vehicle, and allows the striker to be inserted thereinto; and a rotation guide surface formed to be inclined on a surface exposed between the spaced ends of the first locking part and configured to rotate the latch fork when the striker is supported, and wherein the striker is configured to be restricted by the first locking part in a first-stage locking state, or to be restricted by the second locking part in a second-stage locking state. Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
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