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”.
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 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by
Aktas et al.
For claim 1, Aktas et al. (10899250) disclose a vehicle seating assembly comprising: a seat base (generally near 30,90,92); a seat back (84) pivotably coupled with the seat base;
a seat portion (generally 32, 86) pivotably coupled with the seat back, the seat portion pivotably coupled with the seat base,
wherein the seat portion includes an L-shaped lateral member (180,182) having a first arm and a second arm acutely angled from the first arm (FIG.2),
the L-shaped lateral member pivotably connected to the seat back at the first arm,
the L-shaped lateral member pivotably connected to the seat base at the second arm; and
an articulation mechanism (112) coupled to the seat back to pivot the seat back between an upright position (FIGS.2-3) and a folded position (FIG.4),
wherein the seat portion translates (forward and downward) in response to the seat back pivoting.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
440
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claims 1 and 10, Aktas et al. disclose the L-shaped lateral member has a first arm angled from a second arm at a first angle, the first angle being acute as seen in FIG.5B.
Aktas et al. disclose the specific angle of about 80 degrees or less.
PNG
media_image3.png
509
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that although Aktas et al. do not discreetly disclose the range of 80 degrees or less as claimed, the ranges and thicknesses disclosed do fall within the claimed range and therefore satisfy the claim requirements.
For claim 2, the seat portion includes: a first end (a rear end) coupled with the seat back (FIG.1); and a second end (a front end) opposite the first end, the second end coupled with the seat base (via leg 92).
For claim 3, the seat base includes:
a track (14) coupled with a vehicle floor (FIG.1), the track having a back end and a front end opposite the back end;
a support member (108, 90) coupled with the track at the back end, the support member pivotably coupled with the seat back, the support member extending between the seat base and the seat back; and
a leg (92) pivotably coupled with the front end of the track, the leg pivotably coupled with the seat portion, the leg extending between the front end of the track and the seat portion.
For claim 4, the seat portion, the track, and the vehicle floor remain substantially parallel as the seat back pivots.
For claim 5, the support member is statically coupled with the track.
For claim 8, the seat back has a first contour (FIG.1, and wherein the seat portion has a second contour (FIG.1) complementary of the first contour when the seat back is in the folded position
For claim 10, Aktas et al. disclose a vehicle comprising: a seating assembly including:
a seat base including: a track (14) having a back end and a front end; a leg (92) pivotably coupled with the front end of the track; and a support member (90,108) statically coupled with the back end of the track;
a seat back (84) pivotably coupled with the support member;
a seat portion (generally 32, 86, FIG.1) having a first end and a second end, the first end pivotably coupled with the seat back, the second end pivotably coupled with the leg (92); and
an articulation mechanism (112) coupled to the seat back to pivot the seat back between an upright position (FIGS.2-3) and a folded position (FIG.4),
wherein the leg (92) rotates about the front end of the track in response to the seat back pivoting, and wherein the seat portion translates (forward and downward) between a disposed, forward position and a seating position in response to the seat back pivoting.
For claims 9 and 11, the seat back pivots relative to the seat portion about a first axis, wherein the seat back pivots relative to the seat base about a second axis, and wherein the first axis rotates about the second axis.
PNG
media_image4.png
567
545
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claims 6-7 and 12, the seat portion translates forward and downward in response to the seat back pivoting toward the folded position.
For claim 13, an angle between the track and the seat portion remains constant as the seat portion translates (see for example the angle remaining constant between FIGS. 3 and 4).
For claim 14, the angle is about zero degrees.
For claim 18, the second end of the seat portion orbits the front end of the track (as can be seen between FIGS. 3 and 4).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aktas et al. in view of WO 2021/263103 (WO 103).
For claim 19, Aktas et al. disclose a seating assembly for a vehicle, the seating assembly comprising:
a seat base (generally near 30,90,92) including: a pair of tracks (14) having a back end and a front end, the pair of tracks coupled by a track cross member (268) extending therebetween;
a pair of legs (92,92) pivotably coupled with the front end of the pair of tracks, respectively; and a pair of support members (90,108 on either side) statically coupled with the back end of the pair of tracks, respectively,
the pair of support members coupled by a support cross member (see in FIG.2 but not numbered) extending therebetween;
a seat back (84) pivotably coupled with the pair of support members, wherein the seat back pivots between an upright position (FIGS.2-3) and a folded position (FIG.4);
a seat portion (32,86) including:
a pair of L-shaped lateral members (180,182) having a first arm and a second arm, the first arm pivotably coupled with the seat back, the second arm pivotably coupled with the leg;
a platform assembly (generally near 86, where the occupant would be seated), the platform assembly coupled with the lateral members (180,182);
an articulation mechanism (112) coupled to the seat back to pivot the seat back between an upright position and a folded position,
wherein the pair of legs (92,92) rotate about the front end of the pair of tracks in response to the seat back pivoting, and
wherein the seat portion translates (forward and downward) between a disposed, forward position and a seating position in response to the seat back pivoting.
Aktas et al. fail to include a seat cross member as recited.
WO 103 teaches a seat cross member (not numbered but seen in annotated FIG.2 below) coupled with a pair of lateral members, the seat cross member extending between the pair of lateral members; and a platform assembly (not numbered, FIG.2, where occupant would be seated) coupled with the lateral members and the seat cross member, the platform assembly extending therebetween.
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 included with the L-shaped lateral members of Aktas et al. a seat cross member as taught by WO 103 coupled thereto and spanning therebetween where the platform assembly is coupled to the seat cross member and spans between lateral members and the seat cross member in order to adequately support and cushion a seated occupant for optimal comfort.
PNG
media_image5.png
662
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For claim 17, the platform assembly slopes (backwards and down as seen in FIG.1) between the second end and the first end.
For claim 20, the first arm of the pair of L-shaped lateral members orbits a first axis (as seen in the annotated drawing of FIG.2 above) in response to the seat back pivoting, the first axis extending through the first arm and the seat back,
wherein the second arm of the pair of L-shaped lateral members orbits a third axis (see “second axis” in the annotated drawing of FIG.2 above) in response to the seat back pivoting, the third axis extending through the front end of the pair of tracks and the pair of legs, and wherein the seat portion remains substantially parallel to the pair of tracks.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/13/26 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-20 based upon Aktas et al. as set forth above because: it refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application.
The Declaration describes, at item #8, that the ‘acute-angle arrangement’ is “critical” but does not reference the claims which recite precisely “an angle of about 80 degrees or less”.
The Declaration at item #9 states the claimed invention comprises L-shaped lateral members configured with ‘an acute angle’ which is not what the claims recite.
The Declaration at item #10 further state that the “specific acute angle” set forth in the claims provides an optimization for clearance but no one ‘specific acute angle’ is recited in the claims. Instead, an open-ended range of angles is recited (80 degrees or less). It is unclear if the Declaration at item #10 intended to state that the specific range of acute angle provides an optimization for clearance instead of the specific acute angle. There is no statement or evidence that Aktas, as well, does not provide the optimized flat folding of the seat back in a stowed position.
The Declaration at item #11 states the Aktas reference does not represent an L-shaped arm within the context of the present invention but applicant has not defined or re-defined the term “L-shaped” in the claims. This statement is one of opinion and not fact.
As such, the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence fails to outweigh the evidence provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the arguments filed 5/4/26, Applicant argues the L-shaped lateral members of Aktas are oriented at approximately a 45 degree angle when viewing FIG.5B (page 4, lines 19-20). But as 45 degrees is less than 80 degrees, it appears applicant admits that the reference satisfies the claims as broadly recited and interpreted. Aktas et al. satisfies the claim as the angle disclosed falls within the claimed range.
In addition, if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05). With regard to the Declaration of 7/13/26, item #8, the “acute-angle arrangement” is set forth to be critical but not the exact angle or recited range. Therefore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range.
Applicant submits that the Declaration serves as ‘evidence’ to support the claimed “shaped of the L-shaped lateral members are considered important features” (Remarks of 7/13/26, page 2, third paragraph, first sentence). However, examiner once again (see the advisory action for the first instance regarding this issue) asserts that applicant has not defined the term “L-shaped” in the specification. Since no definitions are provided in the specification nor in the claim language, examiner is forced to use the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such terminology and the plain meaning of the words. Applicant is free to act as their own lexicographer but has not done so in these instances. In as much as the lateral members of the current invention are “L-shaped”, the examiner submits that so too are the lateral members of Aktas, and the reference meets the claim limitations as broadly recited and interpreted.
With regard to the Declaration (item #10), Applicant asserts that the L-shaped lateral members (70) are considered important because the components create a pivot offset between the two axes needed for the seat back to dive into a compact, flat-fold stowed position. This rearward extension helps the seat fold flush with the floor. But examiner notes that Aktas as well provides the same compact, flat-folded stowed position. Aktas is achieving the same important feature. As set forth in the advisory action and not addressed in the most recent response from Applicant, it is apparent that the acute-angled lateral members of Aktas would accomplish the same, namely allowing the seat back to fold compactly into a flat, stowed position. The Aktas reference (see FIG.4) discloses the exact same benefits applicant purports is accomplished by the current invention.
Conclusion
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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 3612B
Prosecution Insights