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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, figures 1-3 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “foot extending from a lower end portion of the at least one leg portion in forward and backward directions of the seat apparatus” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, and 18is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearson (US 8226163 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson (US 8226163 B1) discloses a seat apparatus comprising:
a seat frame supporting at least a seat bottom of the seat apparatus (Pearson, figure 4b, item 403);
at least one leg portion supporting the seat frame (Pearson, figures 3 and 4b, items 100, 109 and 200) and including an elongated hole formed to extend in a longitudinal direction of the at least one leg portion (Pearson, figure 3, item 301 and 303); and
a pin member mounted on the seat frame and inserted into the elongated hole to connect the seat frame and the at least one leg portion to each other (Pearson, figure 2, item 115, abstract, bolt/cross member connecting seat to leg),
wherein the elongated hole at least partially includes a narrow portion having a width narrower than a diameter or a width of the pin member (Pearson, figure 3, item 301).
Regarding claim 2, Pearson discloses the seat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the elongated hole includes:
a first end portion and a second end portion, respectively formed at first and second ends of the elongated hole in the longitudinal direction of the at least one leg portion; (Pearson, figure 3, items 303 and 207, slot with ends) and
the narrow portion connecting the first end portion and the second end portion of the elongated hole to each other (Pearson, figure 3, item 209),
wherein the narrow portion includes a constant width in a longitudinal direction of the elongated hole (Pearson, figure 3, item 209).
Regarding claim 11, Pearson discloses the seat apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the pin member is mounted at the first end portion in an unloaded state (Pearson, bolt capable of being mounted at an end in an unloaded state), and
a width of the first end portion is equal to the diameter or the width of the pin member (Pearson, col 4, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 18, Pearson discloses the seat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one leg portion is fixed to a floor within a cabin of a mobility vehicle (Pearson, figure 1, item 107, col 2 lines 40-52, legs fixed to cabin floor of vehicle).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 8226163 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honnorat (US 8408643 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Pearson discloses the seat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one leg portion further includes a foot extending from a lower end portion of the at least one leg portion in forward and backward directions of the seat apparatus.
Honnorat (US 8408643 B2) teaches a seat wherein at least one leg portion further includes a foot extending from a lower end portion of the at least one leg portion in forward and backward directions of the seat apparatus (Honnorat, figure 1, items 5 and 6 leg extending in forward and backward directions of the seat).
Pearson and Honnorat are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Pearson with the leg extending forward and backwards of Honnorat with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an large attachment surface for anchoring the seat to the floor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Pearson discloses the seat apparatus of claim 1, except:
wherein the seat frame includes:
a pair of side members respectively disposed on left and right sides of the seat apparatus, the pair of side members having symmetrical or same shapes; and
at least one support member disposed between the pair of side members to connect the pair of side members to each other,
wherein each side member has at least one through-hole through which the pin member is insertable and passable.
Claims 13-16 are indicated for depending on claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rink (EP 0463436 A2) teaches a side member attached to a side of the seat wherein each side member has at least one through-hole through which the pin member is insertable and passable.
Dhermand (FR 3055611 A1) teaches an energy absorption systems with a deformable backrest.
Hogan (US 3985388 A) teaches a seat with a slot for attaching to a pin of a shock; the slot has a narrowed section for absorbing shock
Ruff (US 5842669 A) teaches a similarly shaped seat and seat leg.
Hahn (US 20100207433 A1) teaches a seat with a sacrificial shear member which is sheared during vertical acceleration.
Pozzi (US 20240294259 A1) also teaches a similarly shaped seat and seat leg.
Lou (US 10612616 B1) teaches an elongated hole with a first end portion (Lou, figure 2, item 17) and a second end portion (Lou, figure 2, item 18), respectively formed at first and second ends of the elongated hole in the longitudinal direction of the at least one leg portion (Lou, figure 2, end portions at ends of the hole); and the narrow portion connecting the first end portion and the second end portion of the elongated hole to each other (Lou, figure 2, items 12, 13, and 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642