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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schounard et al. (US 2021/0214022) in view of Mangiapane et al. (US 2008/0296935).
Regarding claim 1, Schounard et al. discloses an off-road vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]) comprising: a front seat (442) and a rear seat (444); and a panel located below the front seat and extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from a floor (Figs. 14 and 31, pedestal (242) provides a front panel located below the front seat (442) extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from the floor (Figs. 14 and 31, paragraph [0044] which covers a storage space (450)), wherein the panel has an air hole (space where (240) and (188) of (184) connects with pedestal (242)) through which conditioned air flowing rearward from a position in front with respect to the front seat passes (Fig. 14, paragraph [0044], conditioned air from HVAC (132) through (184)), and a space rearward with respect to the panel is a flow path through which conditioned air passing through the air hole flows to the rear seat (Figs. 14-16 show the flow path that goes through the space rearward with respect to the front panel of (242) carried by the rear duct assembly (184) and out vents (244) to the rear compartment (22)).
Schounard et al. discloses what appears to be seat cushions in Figs. 27 and 31, however, does not explicitly state the front seat has a seat cushion.
Mangiapane et al., like Schounard et al., teaches a vehicle with a front seat (10) and a panel (50) located below a seat cushion (32) of the front seat (10) and extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from a floor (Fig. 2, below cushion (32) from a floor (12)), wherein the panel has an air hole (52) through which conditioned air flowing rearward from a position in front with respect to the front seat passes (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Schounard et al. with a seat cushion as taught by Mangiapane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide support for the user of the vehicle, especially since the vehicle may be off-road which can lead to jarring movement.
Regarding claim 2, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Schounard et al.) the vehicle further comprising: an air-conditioner (132) that supplies the conditioned air into a vehicle interior through an air outlet located in front with respect to the front seat (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 2, and teaches (references to Schounard et al.) wherein the panel and the air outlet are substantially in the same position along the vehicle width direction (Fig. 14 shows the air outlet is positioned in the same general vehicle width direction as the panel, therefore the panel “overlaps” with the air outlet).
Regarding claim 4, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and as discussed so far, has been silent as to wherein the air hole of the panel includes a plurality of air holes adjacent to each other.
In addition to the above, Mangiapane et al. teaches wherein the air hole of the panel includes a plurality of air holes adjacent to each other (Fig. 1 shows (52) includes a plurality of openings providing air holes that are adjacent to 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 have modified the amount of air holes provided in the panel of the vehicle of Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, if a direct hose was not used to provide the conditioned air through the panel to the rear section. With additional air holes, there would be enough space to allow the flow of the conditioned air to move through rearwardly without too much resistance. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the panel without the hose if, in addition to the flow of air rearward, flow over the contents of the storage space (450) would be required as well, such as in the case of a battery.
Regarding claim 5, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Schounard et al.) wherein in terms of a position in a front-rear direction, the panel is located in front with respect to a center of the seat cushion in the front-rear direction (Figs. 14 and 31 show that the front panel of the pedestal is in front of the center of the seat cushion). Please note in the combination, the seat cushion is taught by Mangiapane et al.
Regarding claim 6, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Mangiapane et al.) wherein the air hole is positioned higher than a lower end of the panel (Fig. 1).
Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. does not explicitly teach the air hole is positioned higher than a lower end of the panel by 1/3 of an upper-lower dimension of the panel or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the air hole along the panel of the vehicle of Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong panel for the front of the storage space (450) so that anything stored would not be able to move forward underneath the feet of the driver or passenger, and additionally, have a path for the conditioned air through the storage space (450) and out to the rear portion of the vehicle without the items stored blocking too much of the pathway while making sure the space is large enough for proper storage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Mangiapane et al.) wherein the air hole is positioned higher than a lower end of the panel (Fig. 1).
Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. does not explicitly teach wherein in terms of a position in an upper-lower direction, the air hole is positioned higher than an upper end of a center tunnel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the air hole along the panel of the vehicle of Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong panel for the front of the storage space (450) so that anything stored would not be able to move forward underneath the feet of the driver or passenger, and additionally, have a path for the conditioned air through the storage space (450) and out to the rear portion of the vehicle without the items stored blocking too much of the pathway while making sure the space is large enough for proper storage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Schounard et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the front seat includes a driver seat and a passenger seat (paragraph [0003] notes the front seat is for the operator and up to two passengers, for purposes of this rejection, the driver seat is the portion along the left-hand side of the vehicle, the passenger seat is the seat portion furthest away from the driver portion, i.e. operator portion that is shown in Fig. 27), the seat cushion is a seat cushion of the driver seat (Mangiapane et al.: Fig. 1, portion of the seat cushion that the driver would be sitting upon), and the panel is not located below a seat cushion of the passenger seat, or is located partially below the seat cushion of the passenger seat (Fig. 1 shows the panel (50) positioned partially below the seat cushion of the passenger seat).
Regarding claim 9, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Schounard et al.) wherein a space where an occupant of the rear seat can put feet of the occupant is located below the seat cushion of the front seat (Fig. 27 shows a location where an occupant can place their feet below a level where the seat cushion of the front seat would be).
Regarding claim 10, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (references to Schounard et al.) wherein there is no other panel between the air hole and the rear seat (since the air flow from the air hole to the rear seat is encased in the rear duct assembly (184), there would be no other panel between the air hole and the rear seat).
Regarding claim 13, Schounard et al. discloses an off-road vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]) comprising: a driver seat (442) and a rear seat (444) located in rear of the driver seat (Figs. 14 and 31); and a panel located below the driver seat and extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from a floor (Figs. 14 and 31, pedestal (242) provides a front panel located below the driver seat (442) extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from the floor (Figs. 14 and 31, paragraph [0044] which covers a storage space (450)), wherein the panel has an air hole (space where (240) and (188) of (184) connects with pedestal (242)) through which conditioned air flowing rearward from a position in front with respect to the driver seat passes (Fig. 14, paragraph [0044], conditioned air from HVAC (132) through (184)), and a space rearward with respect to the panel is a flow path through which conditioned air passing through the air hole flows to the rear seat (Figs. 14-16 show the flow path that goes through the space rearward with respect to the front panel of (242) carried by the rear duct assembly (184) and out vents (244) to the rear compartment (22)).
Schounard et al. discloses what appears to be seat cushions in Figs. 27 and 31, however, does not explicitly state the driver seat has a seat cushion.
Mangiapane et al., like Schounard et al., teaches a vehicle with a front seat (10) and a panel (50) located below a seat cushion (32) of the driver seat (10) and extending upward and in a vehicle width direction from a floor (Fig. 2, below cushion (32) from a floor (12)), wherein the panel has an air hole (52) through which conditioned air flowing rearward from a position in front with respect to the front seat passes (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Schounard et al. with a seat cushion as taught by Mangiapane et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide support for the user of the vehicle, especially since the vehicle may be off-road which can lead to jarring movement.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schounard et al. (US 2021/0214022) in view of Mangiapane et al. (US 2008/0296935) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kano (US 11192445).
Regarding claim 11, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1. However, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the panel is located outside a center tunnel.
Kano, like Schounard et al., teaches a vehicle, and further teaches a panel (40) located outside a center tunnel ((34), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. to adjust the position of the panel to outside a center tunnel as taught by Kano, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to better fit the design of the vehicle, or to provide additional conditioned air that may further enhance the experience for the rear seat occupant.
Regarding claim 12, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 1. However, Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the panel includes a portion located higher than a center tunnel.
Kano, like Schounard et al., teaches a vehicle, and further teaches a panel (40) includes a portion located higher than a center tunnel ((34), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Schounard et al. as modified by Mangiapane et al. to adjust the position of the panel to include a portion located higher than a center tunnel as taught by Kano, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to better fit the design of the vehicle, or to provide additional conditioned air that may further enhance the experience for the rear seat occupant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argued that Schounard does not teach a space rearward of the panel, and therefore applicant argued that it would not be obvious in the combination.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is broad, and therefore the prior art still reads on the claim limitations. Schounard teaches a space rearward of the panel, which happens to be encased in the rear duct assembly, but there is space within the assembly which holds the flow path for the conditioned air to pass to the rear seat. Therefore, the claims are still rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Groene (US 2720149) and Griswold (US 2344864) teach a flow path for conditioned air under the front seat.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643