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 1-15 are pending.
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 have been withdrawn. Applicant provides a timely traversal in the response dated 2/12/26. Applicant generally states that all arguments are traversed, with no specific reasoning provided. The restriction is therefore maintained for the reasons previously stated and the restriction is deemed final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,054,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements of the listed claims in the present application are provide in the listed claims of US 12054081.
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 8 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 8 recites “wherein the stored energy source is configured as an airbag.” However, claim 7 recites “at least one of a piston or a load plate mechanically coupled to the stored energy source.” There does not appear to be support in the specification, or logically, how the alternative of the piston being mechanically supported by an airbag may translate the piston to provide the compression load.
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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekizuka (US 20200108747). Sekizuka discloses a method for delivering a compression load to a passenger comprising: detecting a forward deceleration event (fig. 3: 56; paragraph 0048); transmitting a forward deceleration event signal to a controller (fig. 3: 54; paragraph 0048); activating an impulse generator via the controller (fig. 4: 72; paragraph 0063); and delivering a compression load to the passenger based on the forward deceleration event signal (through plate 30).
As concerns claim 15, Sekizuka discloses wherein delivering the compression load comprises expanding an airbag (fig. 4).
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) 1-3 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penley (US 10899456) in view of Howard (US 2014/0358378). Penley teaches an impulse generator (fig. 2B: supp. DSA 122) couplable to a seat pan configured to provide compression load onto a spine of a sitting passenger during a forward deceleration event (it provides an axial compression load, similar to that discussed in parent application 17/705614); a controller coupled to the impulse generator and an inertial sensor (fig. 2B: 126; Col. 4, lines 37-39 and Col. 5, lines 55-57 discuss accelerometers for sensing an accident) and activation of the impulse generator based on the forward deceleration signal (Cols. 4-5, lines 62-25).
Penley does not expressly teach one or more processors and a memory with stored instructions to cause the one or more processors to receive a forward deceleration signal and activate the impulse generator based on the signal. However, Howard teaches raising a seat pan in response to an accident using a processor and memory having stored instructions (figs. 5, 6A: 60, 64; paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a processor and memory to the system of Penley in order to provide the desired timing and magnitude of impulse.
As concerns claim 2, Penley, as modified, teaches wherein the impulse generator is couplable to a frame of the seat (fig. 2B: supp DSA 122 must be coupled to the frame in order to press the seat pan upward, similar to that shown in fig. 4B).
As concerns claim 3, Penley, as modified, teaches wherein the safety seat system further comprises the at least one of the frame (as discussed in claim 2).
As concerns claim 11, Penley, as modified, teaches wherein the impulse generator comprises: a solenoid (Penley, Col. 5, lines 61-64); and a piston mechanically disposed within the solenoid and mechanically coupled to the seat pan (fig. 4B: piston 132), wherein an activation of the solenoid translates the piston, wherein a translation of the piston provides the axial compression load (the supp DSA of 122 may be piston/solenoid shown in fig. 4B which provides the compression load to the seat pan).
As concerns claim 12, Penley, as modified, teaches the inertial sensor (fig. 2B: 126).
As concerns claim 13, Penley, as modified, teaches a seat belt (fig. 1: 108).
As concerns claim 14, Penley teaches detecting a forward deceleration event (fig. 2B: 126); activating an impulse generator (fig. 2B: supp DSA 122); and delivering a compression load to the passenger based on the deceleration event signal (Cols. 4-5, lines 62-25). Penly does not expressly teach using a controller for receiving the signal and activation of the impulse generator. However, Howard teaches use of a controller for receiving deceleration signals and actuation of the crash response in the seat (paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a controller for appropriately determining the signal and activation of the impulse.
As concerns claim 15, Penley teaches wherein the compression load comprises expanding an airbag (fig. 2B: supp DSA 122 is an airbag).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penley (US 10899456) in view of Howard (US 2014/0358378) and further in view of Breed (US 6623033). Penley does not teach wherein the compression load is a series of impulses. However, Breed teaches providing an accident/deceleration response to the seat in a progressive series of steps from two sensors (Col. 5, lines 9-20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a series of impulses based on values from two sensors in order to provide additional safety or the desired physical response of the occupant during an accident.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekizuka (US 20200108747) in view of Howard (US 2014/0358378). Sekizuka teaches an impulse generator (fig. 4: 42, 72) couplable to a seat configured to provide compression load onto a spine of a sitting passenger during a forward deceleration event (it presses the seatback cushion face out and into the spine of the user); a controller (fig. 3: 54) coupled to the impulse generator and an inertial sensor (fig. 3: 56) and activation of the impulse generator based on the forward deceleration signal (paragraph 0048).
Sekizuka does not expressly teach one or more processors and a memory with stored instructions to cause the one or more processors to receive a forward deceleration signal and activate the impulse generator based on the signal. However, Howard teaches raising a seat pan in response to an accident using a processor and memory having stored instructions (figs. 5, 6A: 60, 64; paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a processor and memory to the system of Sekizuka in order to provide the desired timing and magnitude of impulse.
As concerns claim 2, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches wherein the impulse generator is couplable to a frame of the seat (paragraph 0044: The inflator 42 is provided at the seat upper side of the interior of the hollow gear pipe 46, which is fixed to the side frame 16AA by a bracket that is not shown in the drawings).
As concerns claim 3, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches wherein the safety seat system further comprises the at least one of the frame (as discussed in claim 2).
As concerns claim 7, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches a stored energy source (fig. 4: 72); and a load plate (fig. 4: 30) mechanically coupled to the stored energy source and to the seat back, wherein upon release of a stored energy from the stored energy source translates the load place, wherein a translation of the load plate provides the compression load (as shown in fig. 4).
As concerns claim 8, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches wherein the stored energy source is configured as an airbag (fig. 4: 72).
As concerns claim 12, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches an inertial sensor (fig. 3: 56).
As concerns claim 13, Sekizuka, as modified, teaches a seat belt (fig. 3: 52).
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