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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/26.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term “interface” pertaining to a location of the latch as recited in claim 2 does not appear in the specification.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by WO 2022/210892.
Regarding claim 1, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 below, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
An apparatus for repositioning a seat cushion (2; Fig. 17) for a vehicle passenger seat (1; Fig. 17) relative to a backrest (3; Fig. 17) of the vehicle passenger seat (1; Fig. 17), the apparatus comprising:
the seat cushion (2; Fig. 17);
a forward support (6; Fig.17; this element is considered to be “forward” with respect to the direction a passenger faces while seated in the seat) affixed (where the word “affix” is defined at merriam-webster.com as “to attach physically”, so that the pivot connection at pivot point A2 in Figure 17 is still considered to “affix” the forward support 6 to an underside of the seat cushion 2) at a first end (at A2 in Fig. 17) to an underside of the seat cushion (3; Fig. 17); a first pivot (A1; Fig. 17) connecting a second end of the forward support (6; Fig. 17) to a vehicle floor (4; Fig. 17), wherein the forward support (6; Fig. 17) and the seat cushion (2; Fig. 17) rotate around the first pivot (as can be seen when comparing Figures 17 and 25) between a driving position (where the driving position is considered to be that shown in Fig. 25 in that the vehicle can be driven with the seat in such orientation) and a lounge position (where the lounge position is considered to be that shown in Figure 17 since the backrest may be tilted back (by way of reclining device 26; Fig. 17; see para. [0123], line 3 of US PGPUB 2024/0166104 which serves as the English language translation of WO 2022/210892) with the seat cushion in the position shown in Figure 17 resulting in a “lounge position”, as broadly as recited);
a rearward support (7; Fig.17; this element is considered to be “rearward” with respect to the direction a passenger faces while seated in the seat) that, when in a deployed position (shown in Fig. 17), supports a rearward end of the seat cushion (2; Fig. 17) from where the forward support (6; Fig.17) is affixed in the lounge position (where the lounge position is considered to be that shown in Figure 17 since the backrest may be tilted back (by way of reclining device 26; Fig. 17; see para. [0123], line 3 of US PGPUB 2024/0166104 which serves as the English language translation of WO 2022/210892) with the seat cushion in the position shown in Figure 17 resulting in a “lounge position”, as broadly as recited); wherein the rearward support (7; Fig.17) is in a stowed position (Fig. 25) when the seat cushion is in the driving position (where the driving position is considered to be that shown in Fig. 25 in that the vehicle can be driven with the seat in such orientation); and
a second pivot (A3; Fig. 17) around which the rearward support (7; Fig. 17) rotates between the deployed position (Fig. 17) and the stowed position (Fig. 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
1091
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 above, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, comprising: a latch (38; Fig. 17; disclosed as a “coupling device” on line 6 of the abstract of the provided English language translation) generally located at an interface (as identified by a circle area in annotated Fig. 17 above; in that the term “interface” is broadly interpreted to mean an area including a rearward end of the seat cushion bottom and a bottom end of the backrest in as much as the term “interface” applies to these features of the current, disclosed invention; see Figure 4 of the current invention for example, where the latch is located at the rearward end of the rearward support 201; Fig. 4; the latch of WO 2022/210892 is considered to be at “the interface” in as much as that of the current invention is at such an “interface”) between the rearward end of the seat cushion (2; Figs. 17 and 25) and a bottom end of the backrest (3; Figs. 17 and 25), wherein the latch (38; Fig. 17 and 25) is latched to a latch anchor (37; Fig 25) when the seat cushion (2; Fig. 17 and 25) is in the driving position (where the driving position is considered to be that shown in Fig. 25 in that the vehicle can be driven with the seat in such orientation), wherein the latch (38; Fig. 17) prevents the seat cushion (2; Figs. 17 and 25) and the forward support (6; Figs. 17 and 25) from rotating around the first pivot (A1; Fig. 17) when latched.
Regarding claim 3, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 above, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, as explained above, wherein the latch (38; Figs. 17 and 25) is located on the rearward end of the seat cushion (2; Figs. 17 and 25) and the latch anchor (37; Fig 25) is affixed to the vehicle floor (4; Figs. 17 and 25).
Regarding claim 4, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 above, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, as explained above, comprising: a latch release (lever 65; Fig. 2 and strap 66; Fig. 2; as described in para. [0140], lines 1-7) that releases the latch (38; Figs. 2, 17 and 25) from the latch anchor (37; Fig 25) when pulled by a user.
Regarding claim 7, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 above, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the second pivot (A3; Fig. 17) affixes the rearward support (7; Figs. 17 and 25) to the underside of the seat cushion (2; Figs. 17 and 25) and wherein the rearward support (7; Fig. 17) swings down from the seat cushion (2; Fig. 17) to reach the deployed position, as can be seen in comparing Fig. 25 to Fig. 17.
Regarding claim 10, and with reference to annotated Fig. 17 above, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, wherein a catch (52; Figs. 17 and 25) affixed to the vehicle floor (4; Figs. 17 and 25) prevents the rearward support (7; Figs. 17 and 25) from moving into the stowed position (Fig. 25) until the seat cushion (2; Figs. 17 and 25) is rotated around the first pivot (A1, Fig. 17) far enough for the rearward support (7; Figs. 17 and 25) to clear the catch (52; Figs. 17 and 25)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/210892 in view of Kim et al. US 12,115,886.
Regarding claim 5, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, except for comprising: a sensor indicating to a vehicle compute device whether the seat cushion is in the driving position or the lounge position.
However, Kim et al. disclose a cushion tilt angle sensor for a seat cushion (3A; Fig. 1) that provides values to a controller (50; Fig. 1). See col. 8, lines 51-56.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Kim et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Kim et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle seating configurations, as the WO 2022/210892 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the seat cushion of WO 2022/210892 with a sensor as taught by Kim et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to determine if the seat is in a safety region state or a risk region state. Motivation provided by Kim et al. in col. 8, lines 59-61.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/210892 in view of Williams et al. US 11,554,688.
Regarding claim 6, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the rearward support includes a third coupling device or latch (53; Fig. 5 and Fig. 17 above).
However, WO 2022/210892 does not disclose a sensor indicating (associated with the latch of the rearward support) to a vehicle compute device whether the rearward support is in the deployed position or the stowed position.
Notwithstanding, Williams et al. disclose a seat latch sensor (51; Fig. 6) for detecting the latched state of the seat latch (8; Fig. 1). See col. 7, lines 13-15. The information from the sensor is provided to a control device (54; Fig. 6). The sensor indicates whether the seat is in a latched position or an unlatched position.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Williams et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Williams et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle seating configurations, as the WO 2022/210892 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the latch of the rearward support of WO 2022/210892 with a latch sensor as taught by Williams et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the state of the latch, namely latched or not. Therefore, in the configuration of WO 2022/210892 in view of Williams et al., the indication that the rearward support latch is latched indicates that the rearward support is in the deployed state and the absence of a latched signal from the sensor indicates that the rearward support is in the stowed position.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/210892 in view Harmon et al. US 12,054,084.
Regarding claim 9, WO 2022/210892 discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, as explained above, wherein a substantially inline surface is provided by the seat cushion and the backrest when the seat cushion is in the driving position and the backrest is fully reclined.
Notwithstanding, Harmon et al. disclose a vehicle seat arrangement where the backrest (68; Fig. 7) may be fully reclined so that a substantially inline surface is provided by the seat cushion (64; Fig. 7) and the backrest (68; Fig. 7).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Harmon et al reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Harmon et al reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle seats with alternate user configurations, as the WO 2022/210892 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the backrest of WO 2022/210892 to be capable of fully reclining so as to create a substantially inline surface by the seat cushion and the backrest as taught by Harmon et al with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a sleeping position for a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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 recitation in claim 8 of the second pivot affixes the rearward support to the vehicle floor and wherein the rearward support swings up from the vehicle floor to reach the deployed position is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While the prior art of record including , WO 2022/210892, applied to claim 1 above as well as WO 2014/104361, Mizushima et al. US 4,408,798, Ito et al. US 5,662,368 and Neale et al. discussed below, disclose rearward supports pivotally affixed to an underside of a seat cushion, none of the reference in the prior art of record disclose such a rearward support being pivotally affixed to the floor in a stowed position (as recited in parent claim 1) and then swung upwards into a deployed position to support a rearward end of the seat cushion, where the seat cushion has a driving position and a lounge position.
Furthermore, since the rearward support of WO 2022/210892 is pivotally mounted to the underside of the seat cushion rather than the floor, one might consider the use of case law, namely In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955 discussed in the MPEP section 2144.04 VI A, to take the position that such difference between the prior art reference WO 2022/210892 and the invention as recited in claim 8 is a an obvious matter of reversal of parts. However, the opening paragraph of MPEP 2144.04 explains that the use of legal precedent applies to “various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art”. Notwithstanding, it this instance pivotally affixing the rearward support to the vehicle floor rather than to the underside of the seat cushion is not considered by Examiner to be an example of such a “common practice.” Specifically, the facts of the In re Gazda, decision are not sufficiently similar to those under examination of current claim 8. The In re Gazda decision involves two engaging elements that rotate relative to one another where one is held in place and the other rotates of vice versa for the finding of “routine expedients.” In the current instance, the rearward support of WO 2022/210892 is connected to the seat and not connected to the floor so that there is no common connection between the seat cushion and the floor whereby a finding of obvious reversal parts based upon In re Gazda would not apply. Furthermore the prior art of record does not have such a support pivotally affixed to a floor. They are all pivotally affixed to the seat cushion. Therefore, the invention as set forth in claim 8 offers a unique and novel configuration, with the advantage that the seat cushion is free from the rearward support in a storage position.
Conclusion
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is pertinent to significant unclaimed features of the defined invention:
WO 2014/104361 discloses a pivoted seat arrangement with a support (10; Fig. 2), which is similar in structure and function to the rearward support of WO 2022/210892 applied above to claims 1-4, 7 and 10. As such, the structure of the support (10; Fig. 2) of WO 2014/104361 is particularly relevant to any further recitation of details of the rearward support which is recited in current claim 1.
Mizushima et al. US 4,408,798 discloses a rearward support (26; Fig. 2 below; shaded) which pivots into a storage position when the seat is tilted forward. The rearward support (26; Fig. 2 below) includes a latching mechanism (72; Fig. 2 below) and a latch release (58; Fig. 2 below). Currently, the rearward support is merely recited in claim 7 as being pivotally affixed to the underside of the seat cushion. However, if details of such pivotal connection are recited, then the connection of the rearward support of Mizushima et al. to the underside of the seat would be particularly relevant to any such recitation. In addition, the forward support (22; Fig. 2 of Mizushima et al.) is fixedly affixed to the bottom of the seat cushion whereas the forward support of WO 2022/210892 is pivotally affixed.
PNG
media_image2.png
761
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Neale et al. US 6,688,666 disclose another pivotal rearward support (50; Figs. 2 and 3) which pivots into a storage position when the set is tilted forwardly. Compare Figures 2 and 3. Similarly, Ito et al. US 5,662,368 disclose a pivotal rearward support (45; Figs. 3 and 4) which pivots into a storage position when the set is tilted forwardly. Compare Figures 3 and 4. The rearward supports of Neale et al. Ito et al. are also particularly relevant to any recitation of additional features of the rearward support of the current invention.
The interpretation of WO 2022/210892 as applied above to claims 1-4, 7 and 10 involves defining forward and backward with respect to the front and rear of a passenger sitting in the seat. However, in WO 2022/210892 the passenger is actually facing rearward of the vehicle. If Applicant were to consider such distinction when making amendments to the claims, then also consider Maruta et al. US 6,375,255. Maruta et al. disclose a seat connected to a stepped floor with a similar configuration relative to that of the current invention. However, the step portion of the floor is towards the rear of the vehicle (see annotated Fig. 3 below) rather than the front of the vehicle as in WO 2022/210892. A reference such as Maruta et al. would be particularly pertinent if Applicant were to amend the claims to define forward and backward in claim 1 to be with respect to the vehicle front and rear, respectively.
PNG
media_image3.png
729
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights