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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a pad member that forms a body of the cushion body.” Does Applicant intend to claim a body within a body or is the pad simply the body of the cushion body. Further, the claim appears to recite three separate cover members. It is unclear if these are intended to be separate, discrete covers or are simply portions of a cover for the seat generally.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US Patent Number 10266082).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses a seat comprising: a seat shell (including 124 for instance) that supports a seated person; and a cushion body (including 112a-F, 112a-U) for cushioning, provided on a seating surface of the seat shell, wherein the seat shell includes an opening (at 122 and/or 124a for instance) penetrating the seating surface, the cushion body includes a ventilation portion (112a-F) whose front surface has a ventilation property and a low-ventilation portion (112a-U) whose front surface has a different ventilation property that is inferior the ventilation property of the ventilation portion (i.e. the fiber pad ventilation/air diffusion greater than the urethane pad), the ventilation portion and the low-ventilation portion being arranged side by side along the seating surface (see at least Figure 4A-A), and the ventilation portion and the opening are provided alongside on the seating surface without the low-ventilation portion interposed between the ventilation portion and the opening (again see figures). While Noguchi would seem to further show the ventilation portion and the opening alongside each other in a left-right- direction (see Figure 4A-B), this may not be clear. However, as rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and support.
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi discloses a device as explained above and further discloses the seat shell includes a top plate (at least an upper, central portion) that forms a central portion of the seating surface in a left-right direction of the seating surface, and opposing banks that rise in a direction intersecting with the top plate from opposing sides of the top plate and form opposing side portions of the seating surface in the left-right direction of the seating surface (associated with 113 for instance), the cushion body includes a top plate cushion (at the top plate) provided on the top plate and respective bank cushions provided on the opposing banks (associated with 113), and the opening includes two through openings each of which is formed between the top plate cushion and one of the respective bank cushions (based on Figure 4-B for instance). While Noguchi would thus appear to provide the device as recited, the particular disclosure of multiple side banks and bank cushions may not be clear. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components, as well as changes in shape, require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide banks and bank cushions as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Regarding claim 3, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses a linear gap that exposes a seating surface of a seat shell along a boundary and an opening communicates with the gap (at 28) but may not disclose this arrangement located as claimed. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the gap as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and support.
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses the top plate cushion includes a lower region configured to support a waist of the seated person and an upper region configured to support a chest of the seated person (at lower and upper regions, respectively), the ventilation portion is disposed to extend across the lower region and the upper region (they could be define in this manner), and each of the two through openings is provided on a respective opposing side of the lower region (again, at least based on Figure 4-B for instance). Note that even in the case that the openings were not clearly provided in sides as intended, duplication and rearrangement of components, as well as changes in shape, require only routine skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an opening as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Regarding claim 5, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses the top plate cushion includes a lower region configured to support a waist of the seated person and an upper region configured to support a chest of the seated person (at lower and upper regions, respectively) but does not clearly disclose ventilation and low-ventilation proportions. Changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components require only routine skill in the art however, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide proportions as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses the ventilation portion is disposed in the top plate cushion and the respective bank cushions (see figures). Note that even in the case that the portion were not clearly provided as intended, duplication and rearrangement of components, as well as changes in shape, require only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide portion arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Regarding claim 7, Noguchi further discloses the cushion body includes a pad member (at least other portions 112a) that forms a body of the cushion body and a cover member (14b) that wraps up the pad member, and a cover member of the ventilation portion has a superior ventilation property than a cover member of the low-ventilation portion (at least based on association with the portions as best understood; i.e. an otherwise uniform cover would provide better ventilation property placed over the ventilation portion than the low-ventilation portion).
Regarding claim 8, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above but does not disclose a particular friction value for the portions. Material choice is a routine design decision and the use of material of differing friction is well-known. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide materials as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and support for various users.
Regarding claim 9, Noguchi further discloses the opening penetrates the seating surface of the seat shell in a front-rear direction (see figures).
Regarding claim 10, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above but does not disclose particular dimensions for the opening. Changes in size and shape of components require only routine skill in the art however, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide proportions as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Regarding claim 11, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses the top plate cushion covers a part of the opening on an inner side in the left-right direction (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 12, Noguchi renders obvious a device as explained above and further discloses the gap of the cushion body extends over a height direction of a backrest portion of the seat, and the opening communicating with the gap is disposed above the gap (this would be the case in the modified device). Note that even in the case that the gap were not clearly provided as intended, changes in size, shape, and arrangement require only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the gap arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort, support, and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636