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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakishima (10518663) in view of Macias et al (20220032824). The reference to Kakishima teaches structure substantially as claimed including a seat including a movable mechanism (at least fig 4), the seat comprising: a frame (fig 2) forming a framework of the seat; a pin (50b) that is slidable in a hole formed in the frame and that is disposed as a part of the movable mechanism, the only difference being that the frame and pin are not particularly stated as being metal and there is not a deformable collar between the hole and pin. However, the use of metal framing structure is well known and conventionally used in seat frames and the reference to Macais et al teaches the use of a metal pin and deformable resin collar including inclined sections and brim shaped flange (at least fig 3, at least paragraphs 97-100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Kakishima with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a metal frame, as known in the prior art as being conventional structure and a metal pin and resin collar, as taught by Macais et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. It is noted that integral is defined as part of a whole. The claimed structure is integral as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakishima (10518663) in view of Macias et al (20220032824)as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Higashi et al (20170072817). The reference to Kakishima in view of Macais et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including frame, hole and pin structure, the only difference being that there is not a burr to provide a reinforced seat for the structures. However, the reference to Higashi et al (at least fig 1 at 3c) teaches the use of a providing a burr in a wall for fitting and strength to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Kakishima in view of Macais et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a burr at the connection point, as taught by Higashi et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including connection structures for movable car seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637