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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn without traverse in Applicant’s election of 3/9/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reichel et al. (DE 102013224266) (“Reichel”). Reichel discloses a panel frame structure comprising: a panel frame (fig. 3: 140); an upper frame (fig. 3: 110) bonded along an upper end of the panel frame; a side frame (fig. 3: 130) bonded along a lateral end of the panel frame; and a mounting bracket (fig. 7: 150) for a lock device (fig. 7: 75), wherein the mounting bracket has a portion overlapped on the upper frame when viewed in a front-back direction (upper portion of rear face of bracket shown in fig. 7).
As concerns claim 2, Reichel discloses wherein the mounting bracket is in a state covering at least part of the upper frame (as shown in fig. 7).
As concerns claim 8, Reichel discloses wherein a clearance space in which the lock device (fig. 7: 75) is stored is provided between the mounting bracket and the upper frame (there is a space between the upper frame and the mounting bracket portion where the lock device 75 is stored).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharman (US 5829831). Sharman teaches a panel frame structure comprising: a panel frame (fig. 3: 26); an upper frame (fig. 3: upper beam of 18) bonded along an upper end of the panel frame; a side frame (fig. 3: 20) bonded along the panel frame; and a mounting bracket (fig. 3: 24) for a lock device (Col. 2, lines 47-49: inertial seat belt lock on 19), wherein the mounting bracket has a portion overlapped on the upper frame when viewed in a front-back direction (upper portion of mounting bracket, as shown in figs. 3 and 4).
Sharman does not teach wherein the side frame is bonded along a lateral end of the panel frame. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as a mere rearrangement of parts, to provide the mounting bracket and locking device on a lateral end side frame of the backrest in order to provide the same belt on locking ability to a user seated in an end of the seat row.
As concerns claim 2, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein the mounting bracket is in a state covering at least part of the upper frame (as shown in figs. 3 and 4).
As concerns claim 3, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein the side frame, the mounting bracket, and the upper frame have overlapped portions when viewed in the front- back direction (as shown in fig. 3 at the top right corner of 24).
As concerns claim 4, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein a clearance space in which a fastener (fig. 4: 51) for mounting the lock device is arranged is provided between the mounting bracket and the upper frame (there is a clearance space between 51 and 18).
As concerns claim 5, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein the fastener is bonded to a sidewall that forms the clearance space (Col. 3, line 27: 52 is welded to sidewall 24 of the mounting bracket).
As concerns claim 6, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein the mounting bracket has the clearance space on an inner side of a region protruding in the front-back direction (as shown in fig. 4: the space is within an inner region of the mounting bracket in the front-rear direction).
As concerns claim 7, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein the mounting bracket is attached to at least one of the upper frame or the side frame (fig. 3: both) and to the panel frame (fig. 4: 26; Col. 8: lines 28-30), but does not teach wherein the attachment is “bonded.” However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try welding as a connection (which is considered old and well known in the art and used for the connection of fastener 52) in order to provide the desired stability to the attachment of the mounting bracket.
As concerns claim 8, Sharman, as modified, teaches wherein a clearance space in which the lock device (fig. 4: 75) is stored is provided between the mounting bracket and the upper frame (fig. 4 shows a space between the lower end of mounting bracket 24 and the upper frame 18).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel. Reichel teaches wherein a clearance space mounting the lock device is arranged is provided between the mounting bracket and the upper frame (as discussed with respect to claim 8 above, there is a space between the mounting area of 75 and the upper frame 110). Reichel does not expressly teach wherein the lock device is mounted via a fastener. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use any type of known fastener (i.e. screw, clamp, press-fit) in order to secure the lock device 75 with the desired amount of stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights