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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection has been addressed and is therefore withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn as the limitation is removed. However, the new limitation raises new issues, as outlined below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Strien does not disclose a seat leg having a base component which is attached to the floor of a vehicle because bar 14 is a component of the back rest. This is not convincing as it is the same configuration as in the instant application. The bar 14 extends upward from a foot portion into seatback, as does applicant’s seat legs 105, which have rod portions 105A2/105B2 and foot portion 105A1/105B1. In both, the rod portion extends upward into the seatback, and yet it is still reasonable to consider this a part of the seat leg rather than part of the seatback. The numerals used in the rejection have been clarified to account for the discrepancies in the notations used in Strien.
To clarify, Figs. 1-2 described the energy absorber as 18 which is only located at rod 16. However, Fig. 3 also describes an energy absorber (118/118’) of the same type but located in the rear rod, which is not labeled in Fig. 3, but is called “bar 114” in the spec, and relates to bar 14 in Fig. 1. Further, the foot portion is not labeled in Fig. 3, but is labelled “6” in Fig. 1.
Applicant then argues that casing 20 of Strien does not house both an energy absorbing component and the rod component, but does not address the specifics of the rejection which details this. As stated and shown in Fig. 2, the casing 20 houses bushings 21/22, which are the deformable energy absorbers. The casing also houses the end of the upper portion of rod 16. As modified, the configuration of the element 18/118 is reversed such that the bottom portion of rod 16 has the head which is inserted into the casing, rather than the upper portion. A such, the casing houses both the energy absorbers and the rod component.
Applicant then argues that Strien does not disclose that the rod component extends vertically because the spec states that it may be angled obliquely. To start, applicant’s arguments quote the claim incorrectly. Applicant states that “claim 1 now recites ‘wherein the rod component extends vertically’”. This is not in the claim. The claim currently recites “wherein the rod component extends substantially vertically”. See below for a discussion of the 112 issues which inform this discussion. Applicant’s arguments seem to argue that the rod must extend exactly 90 degrees upward from a horizontal plane. This is not how the claim is interpreted. Even without “substantially”, “extends vertically” would allow for a rod which has an angle, as that rod would extend vertically and horizontally at the same time, and would therefore read on the limitation. Note, if applicant intends to limit the rod to an exact 90 degree vertical extension, there does not appear to be support for this in the disclosure. Further, Strien specifically discloses an adjustment device (Fig. 3, 117) for changing the inclination of the backrest.
Applicant then argues that Strien does not disclose that “the seat bucket is configured to translate vertically downward relative to the rod component upon experiencing a predetermined force load associated with the vertical impact event”. Again, “vertically downward” allows for an angled seat as such a seat would translate both vertically horizontally, therefore meeting the limitation of vertical movement. Next, this limitation is partially a functional limitation which is an intended response to a potential force. Essentially, if a vertical impact force were to occur on the seatback, would it translate vertically downward? Clearly, when looking at Fig. 2, we see that the energy absorber allows for deformation in the vertical direction when it is impacted downwardly by the upper rod portion 16. So at least the upper portion of the seatback would move vertically downward when impacted. Applicant only argues that the disclosure states that the seatback may pivot and/or translate when horizontally impacted. Strien does give an example of such a crash impact with another vehicle (largely horizontal), but this is not relevant to the discussion of what would happen during the claimed limitation of a vertical impact event. Applicant does not discuss this potential event and how the structure would respond.
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 1-2 and 21-28 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.
Claim 1 states “wherein the rod component extends substantially vertically from the base component into the receiving component of the seat bucket and wherein the vehicle seat comprises a first side containing the seat bucket and a second side positioned opposite from the first side”.
It is unclear how these “sides” are defined as well as how the “vehicle seat”, “seat bucket”, and “receiving component” are defined. Claim 1 states that the vehicle seat comprises a seat bucket, which in turn comprises a receiving component. The new limitation states that the vehicle seat has a first side which contains the seat bucket, and that the receiving component is positioned on a second side which is opposite the first side. If the receiving component is a part of the seat bucket, it is therefore on the first side, but then it is stated that it is on the second side. It is not clear how this is possible, or at least how these components are to be arranged or what is meant by said “sides”.
The term “substantially vertical” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 and 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strien et al (US 3697128 A).
For claim 1, Strien disclose a vehicle seat, comprising:
a seat leg Fig. 1-3: rear foot bracket 6 (not labeled in Fig. 3) and the rear rod extending upward therefrom having a base component Fig. 3: foot bracket and a rod component Fig. 3: lower part of rear rod below 118’, wherein a first surface of the base component is attached to a floor of a vehicle foot bracket attached to floor 7/107 and a second surface of the base component is attached to a first end of the rod component foot bracket attached to lower end of bar;
an energy absorbing component associated with the rod component Fig. 3: 118’.
Strien discloses the energy dissipating element 18/118/118’ in Fig. 2 in a certain orientation in which the upper rod 16 has a component which extends into the casing 20, rather than the lower rod 16 extending into the casing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to orient the energy dissipating element in the other (upside-down) orientation in order to allow installation in either direction for ease of manufacturing, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this orientation the casing would house a portion of the lower rod 16.
As modified, Strien discloses a seat bucket having a receiving component Fig. 2: casing 20 configured to house the energy absorbing component and the rod component casing houses 21/22 and the end of the bottom section of rod 16, as modified, wherein the rod component extends substantially vertically as it has a vertical component and is more vertical than horizontal from the base component into the receiving component of the seat bucket Fig. 3: as modified and wherein the vehicle seat comprises a first side containing the seat bucket and a second side positioned opposite from the first side, wherein the receiving component is positioned on the second side in light of the 112 issues, in this case, the receiving component being located in the backrest portion is considered a “second side” of the vehicle seat which is opposite a “first side” containing the seat bottom portion and is integrated into a back rest of the vehicle seat backrest has a lateral bulge 13/113 which houses the energy dissipating element 18/118’;
wherein the seat bucket is configured to translate vertically downward Fig. 3: has a vertical component of movement based on the angle of the rod and 118’; additionally has an adjustment device 117 for angling the seatback to a particular inclination relative to the rod component upon experiencing a predetermined force load associated with the vertical impact event configured for this use; Col 8, lines 12-16: “the purpose of the energy-dissipating element 18 to permit the total length of bar 16 to be changed if it is subjected to compressive or tensile stresses beyond certain predetermined limits”.
For claim 22, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the rod component is cylindrically-shaped the rod is depicted as being cylindrical.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the rod of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as making them cylindrical with circular ends in order to use a structurally strong shape which is commonly found. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
For claim 23, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the energy absorbing component is cylindrically-shaped bushing 21/22.
For claim 24, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the energy absorbing component is composed of an aluminum material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam be an aluminum foam in order to provide a hard foam that can withstand the desired forces and absorb the required load, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
For claim 25, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the vehicle seat further comprises a second energy absorbing component associated with a second rod component truss structure on other side;
wherein the second energy absorbing component is composed of an identical material as the energy absorbing component as they are the same components on either side.
For claim 26, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the vehicle seat further comprises a second energy absorbing component associated with a second rod component truss structure on other side;
But fails to disclose that the second energy absorbing component is composed of a different material than the energy absorbing component.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the other absorber of a different material provide different characteristic on either side depending on the anticipated loads or to use provide a similar response but with a larger/smaller piece of material depending on the available space on each side, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
For claim 27, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the energy absorbing component is in an uncompressed state when the vehicle seat is in a first configuration prior to experiencing a predetermined force load Fig. 2: material 21/22 uncompressed at first.
For claim 28, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the energy absorbing component is in a compressed state when the vehicle seat is in a second configuration after experiencing a predetermined force load 21/22 compressed after load is applied.
Claim(s) 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strien in view of Cordes et al (US 6406092 B1).
For claim 2, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the energy absorbing component is a foam component positioned against a second end of the rod component and wherein the energy absorbing component is configured to be compressed by the rod component upon experiencing the predetermined force load.
However, Cordes teaches a shock absorbing cylinder Fig. 10 for a vehicle seat in which an end of a rod component 5b’’ is positioned against a foam component 5k which is configured to be compressed by the rod component upon experiencing a predetermined force load Col 3, lines 44-45: “In the event of a collision, the hard foam is deformed and compressed”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Strien by using a compressible foam component within the cylinder housing which may be compressed by the rod as disclosed by Cordes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a “high-resistance foam that offers resistance to movement” in order to protect the user from a dangerous collision.
For claim 21, Strien discloses the vehicle seat of claim 2, wherein the first end of the rod component and the second end of the rod component are circular as the rod is depicted as being cylindrical.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the rod of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as making them cylindrical with circular ends in order to use a structurally strong shape which is commonly found. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
