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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 states “energy absorbing component component”. The repeated word should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “an opposing surface of the vehicle seat”. It is unclear what this surface is opposing, and therefore unclear how this surface is defined.
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: bar 14 having a base component Fig. 3: base 107 and a rod component Fig. 3: lower part of bar below 118’, wherein a first surface of the base component is attached to a floor of a vehicle 107 attached to floor and a second surface of the base component is attached to a first end of the rod component 107 attached to lower end of bar;
an energy absorbing component associated with the rod component Fig. 3: 118’.
Strein 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.
As modified, Strein 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 receiving component is positioned on an opposing surface of the vehicle seat positioned on the surface of the top rod 16, as modified, which is opposing the bottom rod 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’.
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 a 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights