November 19, 2023
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/11/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Applicant ailed to provide a date for citations WOPCT/CA2022/000016-ISR and WOPCT/CA2022/000016-WO under the “FOREIGNPATENTDOCUMENTS” section of the IDS. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the aforementioned citations referred to therein have not been considered as to the merits and have been lined-through. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
In claim 1, line 4, Applicant claims “a strengthening bracket associated to both the backrest structure and the seat structure”. The word “associated” is unclear and confusing language. What does Applicant mean by “associated”?
Regarding claim 8,, the phrase "7075T6 type aluminum" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "7075T6 type "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 12, line 2, Applicant claims “a sliding mechanism associated with the seat structure”. The word “associated” is unclear and confusing language. What does Applicant mean by “associated”?
In claim 14, line 2, Applicant claims “a sliding mechanism associated with the seat structure”. The word “associated” is unclear and confusing language. What does Applicant mean by “associated”?
In claim 14, line 4, the phrase “to me mounted to a seat base” is unclear and confusing. It appears the word “me” should have been - - be - -.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase " saddle-type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "saddle-type "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The aforementioned problems render the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaku et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,974,619 B2) in view of Vits et al.(U.S. Patent No. 7,029,067 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
212
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaku et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a seat structure for emergency vehicles including a generally L-shaped column 2 defining a backrest structure and a seat structure; a transversal element 13 provided at a junction of the backrest structure and the seat structure but does not teach a strengthening bracket associated to both the backrest structure and the seat structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
274
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
272
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Vits et al. the concept of associating a strengthening bracket to both the backrest structure and the seat structure to be old; wherein the backrest structure, the seat structure and the bracket generally define a triangle through which a transversal element 308 passes. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat structure, as taught by Kaku et al., to include associating a strengthening bracket to both the backrest structure and the seat structure, as taught by Vits et al., since the strengthening bracket of Vits et al., is in the form of a gusset, with gussets specifically designed as a plate or bracket for strengthening an angle in framework.
As for claim 3, Kaku et al. teach that the L- shaped column is defined by a generally rectangular tubing.
As for claim 10, Kaku et al. teach that the transversal element 13 traverses the L-shaped column.
As for claim 13, Kaku et al. teach a seat mounted to the seat structure; and a backrest mounted to the backrest structure.
As for claims 12 and 14, so far as understood, Kaku et al. teach a sliding mechanism associated with the seat structure; the sliding mechanism is so configured as to move longitudinally along the seat structure; the sliding mechanism including a post configured to me mounted to a seat base (see column 5, line 67 and column 6, lines 1-2 where it reads “ These legs 11 may be either directly attached to the floor F or via a slide rail system that allows the fore and aft adjustment of the seat 1.”).
As for claim 15, Kaku et al. teach that the seat is a saddle-type seat (see Fig. 6 and the specification at column 9, lines 20-32 where it reads “In a modified embodiment, at least one of the seat parts consist of a plurality of seat part segments. For instance, as shown in FIG. 6, the seat cushion 5 may consist of a laterally central part 71 and a pair of side parts 72 detachably connected to either side of the central part 71. The central part 71 and the side parts 72 are each provided with a sub frame, a pad and a skin member, individually. The central part 71 is detachably connected to the frame member 2 via a first connector unit 20. Each side part 72 is detachably connected to the central part 71 via a second connector unit 74 which connects the two parts”) The “central par 71” is a “saddle type seat”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636