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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 , 24, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “the rack and pinion mechanism include a pinion gear…”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “the rack and pinion mechanism includes a pinion gear”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it contains a period at the end of line 10. For purposes of examination, this period is interpreted as a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 24 be found allowable, claim 27 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 24 and 27 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.
Claims 24 and 27 recite the limitation "the upper member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nishikawa et al. (US 20080252128 A1), in view of Rouhana (US 20140138942 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a system (1, Fig. 1), comprising: a seatback frame (10 and 20, Fig. 2) having a lower frame (10 of 2L, Fig. 2) and an upper frame (20 of 2U, Fig. 2) carried by and movable relative to the lower frame (para. [0028], “upon upward movement of…the upper frames 20, the upper half 2U is moved upwardly relative to the lower half 2L”) between a retracted position (position of 20, Fig. 2 and para. [0030]) and an extended position (position of 20, Fig. 3 and para. [0030]); and
an actuator (41 and 42, Fig. 2) operatively coupled to the upper frame (Fig. 2 and para. [0039]-[0040]) to move the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position (Figs. 2-3 and para. [0039]-[0040]).
Nishikawa is silent about a webbing guide fixed to and movable with the upper frame as the upper frame moves between the retracted position and the extended position; a seatbelt assembly including a retractor carried by the upper frame and movable with the upper frame as the upper frame moves between the retracted position and the extended position; and webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide.
Rouhana teaches a webbing guide fixed to a similar upper frame (38, Fig. 2); a seatbelt assembly including a retractor carried by a similar upper frame (50, Fig. 2); and webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide (16, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper frame of Nishikawa with a webbing guide, a seatbelt assembly including a retractor, and webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide as taught by Rouhana, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Rouhana’s webbing guide, retractor, and webbing are fixed to/carried by Nishikawa’s movable upper frame and movable with the upper frame. This would provide the benefit of providing a guide for securing a occupant restraint, enhancing safety of the seat.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 1, further comprising a seat bottom (Nishikawa, 3, Fig. 1).
Modified Nishikawa is silent about a latch plate slidably disposed on the webbing, and a buckle attached to the seat bottom and operative to releasably engage the latch plate.
Rouhana teaches a latch plate slidably disposed on the webbing (24, Fig. 3), and a buckle attached to a similar seat bottom and operative to releasably engage the latch plate (26, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the seat bottom of modified Nishikawa with the latch plate slidably disposed on the webbing and buckle as taught by Rouhana, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would provide the benefit of providing a buckle for the seatbelt, enhancing safety of the seat.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Nishikawa discloses the seat system of claim 1, further comprising a head restraint supported by and movable with the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position (Nishikawa, 4, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Nishikawa discloses the seat system of claim 1, further comprising a seatback cover (Nishikawa, Cu and Cl, Fig. 1, and para. [0025]) including a lower portion (Nishikawa, Cl, Fig. 1) and an upper portion (Nishikawa, Cu) at least partially overlapping the lower portion (Nishikawa, examiner notes Cu at least partially overlaps the Cl at 2a in the retracted position, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Nishikawa discloses the seat system of claim 1, wherein the upper frame and the lower frame telescope relative to each other (Nishikawa, para. [0025], “2a is telescopically coupled to the seat upper half 2U”).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 20080252128 A1) as applied above, in view of Little (US 20200062156 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 1.
Modified Nishikawa employs a screw rod as the actuator (42, Fig. 2), and is therefore silent about wherein the actuator is a rack and pinion mechanism coupled to the upper frame and operative to move the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position.
Little teaches a rack and pinion mechanism (14, Fig. 3 and para. [0025], “a rack and pinion arrangement”) coupled to a similar upper frame and operative to move the similar upper frame between a retracted and extended position (para. [0025] and Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the actuator of modified Nishikawa to be a rack and pinion mechanism as taught by Little, whereby Little’s rack and pinion mechanism is coupled to modified Nishikawa’s upper frame and operative to move the upper frame between the retracted and extended positions, with a reasonable expectation of success., since the equivalence of a screw rod actuator and a rack and pinion actuator for their use in linear actuation in the art and the selection of any known linear actuators would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 8, wherein the rack and pinion mechanism include a pinion gear (Little, 43, Fig. 7 and para. [0025]) and a gear rack (Little, 27, Fig. 3 and para. [0025]), the gear rack being secured to the upper frame (Nishikawa, as modified by Little, examiner notes in order for the upper frame to be moved, the gear rack must be clearly be secured to Nishikawa’s upper frame).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Nishikawa discloses the seat system of claim 1.
Modified Nishikawa is silent about a computer having a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to activate the actuator and to move the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position in response to determining that an occupant is seated in the seat.
Little teaches a computer (controller 25, para. [0027]) having a processor (microprocessor 44, para. [0027]) and a memory (memory 48, para. [0027]) storing instructions executable by the processor (programs and/or software 50, para. [0027]) to activate the actuator and to move the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position in response to determining that an occupant is seated in the seat (using weight sensor 26, see Fig. 8 and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the seat system of modified Nishikawa with the computer to activate the actuator and move the upper frame between the retracted and extended positions in response to determining that an occupant is seated in the seat, as taught by Little, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would provide the benefit of placing the upper frame in a stowed position when not in use allowing for decreased visual obstruction, while automatically placing the upper frame in a deployed position for the safety and comfort of an occupant (Little, para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Nishikawa teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the instructions include instructions to adjust the position of the upper frame relative to the lower frame based on a determined size of the occupant (Little, Fig. 8 and para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 13, further comprising a head restraint supported by and movable with the upper frame (Nishikawa, 4, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 13.
Nishikawa employs a screw rod as the actuator (42, Fig. 2), and is therefore silent about wherein the actuator is a rack and pinion mechanism coupled to the upper frame and operative to move the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position.
Little teaches a rack and pinion mechanism (14, Fig. 3 and para. [0025], “a rack and pinion arrangement”) coupled to a similar upper frame and operative to move the similar upper frame between a retracted and extended position (para. [0025] and Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the actuator of Nishikawa to be a rack and pinion mechanism as taught by Little, whereby Little’s rack and pinion mechanism is coupled to Nishikawa’s upper frame and operative to move the upper frame between the retracted and extended positions, with a reasonable expectation of success., since the equivalence of a screw rod actuator and a rack and pinion actuator for their use in linear actuation in the art and the selection of any known linear actuators would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 19, wherein the upper frame and the lower frame telescope relative to each other (Nishikawa, para. [0025], “2a is telescopically coupled to the seat upper half 2U”).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nishikawa as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Rouhana (US 20140138942 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 13, further comprising a seat bottom (Nishikawa, 3, Fig. 1).
Modified Nishikawa is silent about a latch plate slidably disposed on a webbing, and a buckle attached to the seat bottom and operative to releasably engage the latch plate.
Rouhana teaches a latch plate slidably disposed on the webbing (24, Fig. 3), and a buckle attached to a similar seat bottom and operative to releasably engage the latch plate (26, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the seat bottom of modified Nishikawa with the latch plate slidably disposed on the webbing and buckle as taught by Rouhana, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would provide the benefit of providing a buckle for the seatbelt, enhancing safety of the seat.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nishikawa as applied above, in view of Muller (US 6082817 A).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 1.
Modified Nishikawa is silent about wherein the upper frame includes a detent and the lower frame includes a plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent when a force is applied to the upper frame in a seat-forward direction, the apertures being spaced from each other along a seat-vertical axis.
Muller teaches a similar upper frame (45, Fig. 3) includes a detent (41, Fig. 3) and a similar lower frame (26, Fig. 3) includes a plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent (apertures of 37, Fig. 3) when a force is applied to the upper frame in a seat-forward direction (Col. 3, lines 56-60), the apertures being spaced from each other along a seat-vertical axis (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper and lower frames of modified Nishikawa with a detent and plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent when a force is applied, the apertures being spaced along a vertical axis, as taught by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance passenger safety by allowing for a secure protective position of the seat.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 21.
Modified Nishikawa is silent about a spring between the upper frame and the lower frame, the spring biasing the detent away from engagement with the apertures and the spring being depressible when force is applied to the upper frame in the seat- forward direction to engage the detent with one of the apertures.
Muller teaches a spring (51, Fig. 3) between the similar upper and lower frames, the spring biasing the detent away from engagement with the apertures and being depressible when force is applied to the upper frame (Col. 3, lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper and lower frames of modified Nishikawa with a spring, as taught by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance passenger safety by allowing for a protective position of the seat selectively as a result of an applied force.
Regarding Claims 24 and 27, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 21.
Modified Nishikawa is silent about wherein the lower frame includes a slot and the upper member includes a pin received in the slot and limiting travel of the upper frame relative to the lower frame.
Muller teaches wherein the lower frame includes a slot (Muller, 38) and the upper member includes a pin received in the slot (42, Fig. 3) and limiting travel of the upper frame relative to the lower frame (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper and lower frames of modified Nishikawa with a slot and pin, as taught by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure a secure and stable support of the upper frame in different positions (Muller, Col. 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 21, wherein the upper frame moves relative to the lower frame along the seat-vertical axis between the retracted position and the extended position (Nishikawa, 20 moves along the seat-vertical axis, see Figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nishikawa as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Brantley (US 8376442 B1).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Nishikawa teaches the seat system of claim 22.
Modified Nishikawa is silent about wherein the spring is a leaf spring.
Brantley teaches a leaf spring (104). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Nishikawa’s prestresssing spring as a leaf spring, as taught by Brantley, since the equivalence of prestressing springs and leaf springs for their use in the seats art and the selection of any known equivalents to prestressing springs would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nishikawa et al. (US 20080252128 A1) in view of Muller (US 6082817 A) and Rouhana (US 20140138942 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Nishikawa discloses a system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a seatback frame (10 and 20, Fig. 2) having a lower frame (10 of 2L, Fig. 2) and an upper frame (20 of 2U, Fig. 2) carried by and movable relative to the lower frame (para. [0028], “upon upward movement of…the upper frames 20, the upper half 2U is moved upwardly relative to the lower half 2L”) along a seat-vertical axis between a retracted position (position of 20, Fig. 2 and para. [0030]) and an extended position (position of 20, Fig. 3 and para. [0030]);
an actuator (41 and 42, Fig. 2) operatively coupled to the upper frame to move the upper frame (Fig. 2 and para. [0039]-[0040]) between the retracted position and the extended position (Figs. 2-3 and para. [0039]-[0040]);
Nishikawa is silent about the upper frame including a detent and the lower frame includes a plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent when a force is applied to the upper frame in a seat- forward direction, the apertures being spaced from each other along a seat-vertical axis;
a spring between the upper frame and the lower frame, the spring biasing the detent away from engagement with the apertures and the spring being depressible when force is applied to the upper frame in the seat-forward direction to engage the detent with one of the apertures.
a webbing guide fixed to and movable with the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position;
a seatbelt assembly including a retractor carried by the upper frame and movable with the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position; and
webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide.
Muller teaches Muller teaches a similar upper frame (45, Fig. 3) including a detent (41, Fig. 3) and a similar lower frame (26, Fig. 3) includes a plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent (apertures of 37, Fig. 3) when a force is applied to the upper frame in a seat-forward direction (Col. 3, lines 56-60), the apertures being spaced from each other along a seat-vertical axis (Fig. 3); and
a spring (51, Fig. 3) between the similar upper and lower frames, the spring biasing the detent away from engagement with the apertures and being depressible when force is applied to the upper frame in the seat-forward direction to engage the detent with one of the apertures (Col. 3, lines 40-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper and lower frames of modified Nishikawa with a detent and plurality of apertures positioned to alternatively receive the detent when a force is applied, the apertures being spaced along a vertical axis, as taught by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance passenger safety by allowing for a secure protective position of the seat.
a webbing guide fixed to and movable with the upper frame between the retracted position and the extended position;
Rouhana teaches a seatbelt assembly (Fig. 2) including a retractor carried by a similar upper frame (38, Fig. 2); and webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide (16, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upper frame of modified Nishikawa with a webbing guide, a seatbelt assembly including a retractor, and webbing extending from the retractor through the webbing guide as taught by Rouhana, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Rouhana’s webbing guide, retractor, and webbing are fixed to/carried by Nishikawa’s movable upper frame and movable with the upper frame. This would provide the benefit of providing a guide for securing a occupant restraint, enhancing safety of the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pgs. 6-7 in reference to Claim 1:
“Neither Nishikawa nor Rouhana provides any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount both a webbing guide and a retractor on a vertically movable upper frame, as now claimed…”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Nishikawa is used to teach the overall seat structure, including a vertically movable upper frame (20 of 2U, Fig. 2). However, Nishikawa’s seat lacks a seatbelt carried by and movable with the movable upper frame. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a seatbelt assembly to Nishikawa’s seat to enhance passenger safety. This is remedied by the combination with Rouhana, which teaches a webbing guide and retractor on a similar upper frame. Because Nishikawa’s upper frame is movable, when Rouhana’s seatbelt assembly is combined with Nishikawa’s upper frame, the webbing guide and retractor would reasonably move with Nishikawa’s upper frame. This would provide the benefit of including an occupant restraint with Nishikawa’s seat, enhancing safety of the system. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Nishikawa in view of Rouhana teaches Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights