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 § 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.
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 1-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aktas et al. in view of DE 10 2006 007 139 (DE 139).
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. lack the L-shaped lateral member has a first arm angled from a second arm at a first angle of about 80 degrees or less.
DE 139 teaches an L-shape member (45) with first and second arms which are provided at an acute angle (FIG.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 provided the angle of the first and second arm of Aktas et al. to be acute as taught by DE 139 as an obvious design expedient based on desired aesthetics (what is pleasing to the eye) and consumer demands.
The court has held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 43 I (CCPA 1947) and see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669. 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As applicant has not disclosed any reasoning for the particular angle of the arms, that the degree of the angles solves any stated problem, or that the angle is the critical to the invention and absent persuasive evidence of such, it is apparent that the angle is one of ornamentation alone and a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Atkas et al., as modified, fails to disclose the acute angle formed by the first and second arms being 80 degrees or less.
It should be noted, however, that although DE 139 did not discreetly disclose the angular degree being 80 or less as claimed, 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). Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range.
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 provided Atkas et al., as modified, with an angle within the claimed range (80 or less) since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Additionally, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Atkas et al., as modified, would not operate differently with an acute angle outside the claimed range.
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., as twice modified above, further 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).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aktas et al., as twice modified above, and further in view of WO 2021/263103 (WO 103).
For claim 19, Aktas et al., as twice modified above, 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., as twice modified, further 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., as twice modified above, 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as modified have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
During a telephone conversation with Kevin Grzelak, examiner inquired about the specific angle of the arms and the reasoning for the particular angle. Applicant directed examiner’s attention to [0036] which discloses that the arms are angled and allow for the first pivot mechanism 34 to be between the first and second arm 72,74 in the upright position but the specification does not elaborate on the necessity of this configuration or even the advantages thereof.
Conclusion
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 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