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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (Figures 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of claims 1-20 are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of claims 1-16 (Species A) would encompass a search for the subject matter of claims 17-20 (Species B and C), and different actuation mechanisms to achieve the multiple positions of the seat assembly are not distinct inventions, accordingly, the claimed subject matter involves similar structural elements and functional relationships, requiring overlapping prior art searches, and actuation differences do not require unrelated art fields.. This is not found persuasive because a different search using the appropriate terms for the location of the parts, would be required to find the different configurations of the parts in the different species, which are not overlapping searches. For example, for Species A, motors and frames would have to be searched for that are located laterally outside of a mounting bracket, and for Species B, a lever and base frames would have to be searched for that are located laterally inside of a mounting bracket, and finally for Species C, motors and base frames that are located laterally inside of a mounting bracket would also have to be searched for.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/501, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The figures that are not included in the prior-filed provisional are 16-24.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "136" (in FIG. 5) and "144" (in at least FIGS. 6-7, 9-10) have both been used to designate "rotation axis." 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 10 reference characters 160, 192 are pointing to two different parts of reference character 190, none of which specify which part is reference character 160 and which part is reference character 192. There appears to be no similarity between the parts being pointed to that would indicate which reference character is specific to any given part. In FIG. 9, reference characters 160 and 192 are pointing to and touching a spring, and also in FIG. 9, reference characters 160 and 192 are pointing to and touching the center of a hole on reference character 132. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0011] – Paragraph [0011] recites the following: “FIG. 9 is a side view generally illustrating an embodiment of a seat assembly in a design position according to teachings of the present disclosure.” Figure 9 is not a seat assembly in a design position. Rather, Figure 9 is a folded position of the frame assembly, as correctly disclosed in paragraph [0051].
Paragraph [0038] – In line 11, it appears that the word “include” is a typographical error and should, perhaps, be the word “including” instead.
Paragraph [0040] – In line 2, it appears that the word “a” is a typographical error and should be the word “an” instead.
Paragraph [0042] – In lines 1 and 2 of the first sentence in this paragraph, “rotation axis 134 and rotation axis 120 are both referred to as “a second rotation axis,” respectively. Given that these two axes are clearly shown as different axes in the figures, referring to these two axes as the same axis is confusing.
Paragraph [0057] – Reference character 142 is not in the figures.
Paragraph [0057] – Reference “136” and “36” are both used to designate “seatback frame.”
Paragraph [0057] – In line 5, it appears that the word “be” is a typographical error and should, perhaps, be the word “being” instead.
Paragraphs [0056]- [0057] – These paragraphs refer to FIG. 10 and disclose the correlation between reference characters 34, 36, 118, 140, 142 (which is not shown in any of the figures) 160, 162, 164, 190, 192, and 194, regarding their connection, proximity, engagement, and disengagement. The disclosure in paragraph [0057] does not clearly align with what is shown in FIG. 10 in the drawings. Please amend the specification and FIG. to match what is being disclosed in FIG. 10, and maybe in FIG 9 as well, given that FIG. 10 is an enlarged view showing portions of the side view of FIG. 9 as disclosed in paragraph [0012].
Paragraph [0080] - In line 5, it appears reference character that reads 6422 is a typographical error. Should reference number 6422 be reference number 642 instead, as shown in FIG. 22? Additionally, the last sentence reads as follows: “Reducing or eliminating eccentric rotation can allow of smoother rotation of the base frame 432 as the frame assembly 430 moves to and between the reclined, design, and easy entry positions.” It appears that the first occurrence of the word “of,” i.e., in the phrase “rotation can allow of smoother rotation” is a typographical error. Perhaps the word “of” in this phrase should be “for” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SIVARAJ, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0366886 A1 (hereinafter called SIVARAJ).
Regarding claim 1, SIVARAJ teaches a seat assembly, comprising
a frame assembly, including:
a base frame (See e.g., FIGS. 2-7 element 170);
a seat bottom frame (See e.g., FIGS. 3-7 element 120; ¶ [0034]) rotatably coupled with the base frame; and
a seatback frame (See e.g., FIGS. 3-7 element 110; ¶ [0032]) rotatably coupled to the base frame;
wherein the frame assembly includes a plurality of positions, including a reclined position (See e.g., FIG. 3; ¶ [0033], “First of all, the vehicle seat 100 is described in a specific use position illustrated in FIG. 3, namely the design position, in which the backrest 110 is inclined rearwards by, for example, 23° with respect to the vertical direction z.”), a design position (See e.g., FIG. 2), an easy-entry position (See e.g., FIG. 5), and a folded position (See e.g., FIG. 7);
the seat bottom frame is engaged with at least one of the seatback frame and the base frame in the reclined position (See e.g., FIG. 3; ¶ [0042], with the focus on the teaching in the last sentence) and the design position; and
the seat bottom frame is disengaged from the seatback frame in the folded position (See e.g., FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 2, SIVARAJ teaches comprising a track assembly, including:
a first track (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 142), and
a second track (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 144) slidably coupled with the first track (See e.g., ¶ [0035]);
wherein the base frame is rotatably coupled with the second track (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 170 & 144).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
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 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over SIVARAJ.
Regarding claim 13, SIVARAJ teaches a difference in rotational position of the base frame between the reclined position and the easy-entry position of the frame assembly (See e.g., FIGS. 3 & 5 element 170). But SIVARAJ does not explicitly teach that a difference in rotational position as claimed is at least 45 degrees. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a difference in the rotational position as claimed is at least 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, for example, as disclosed in SIVARAJ at FIGS. 3 & 5 element 170 being at degrees allowing for suitable passenger conveyance and to increase the loading volume, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, SIVARAJ teaches a difference in a seatback frame angle of the seatback frame between the reclined position and the folded position of the frame assembly (See e.g., FIGS. 3 & 7 element 110). But SIVARAJ does not explicitly teach that a difference in a seatback frame angle as claimed is at least 115 degrees. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a difference in a seatback frame angle as claimed is at least 115 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, for example, as disclosed in SIVARAJ at FIGS. 3 & 7 element 110 being at an angle of degrees allowing for suitable passenger conveyance and to increase the loading volume, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, SIVARAJ teaches a difference in a seat bottom frame angle of the seat bottom frame between the reclined position and the easy-entry position of the frame assembly (See e.g., FIGS. 3 & 5 element 120). But SIVARAJ does not explicitly teach that a difference in a seat bottom frame angle as claimed is at least 50 degrees. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a difference in a seat bottom frame angle as claimed is at least 50 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, for example, as disclosed in SIVARAJ at FIGS. 3 & 5 element 120 being at an angle of degrees allowing for suitable passenger conveyance and to increase the loading volume, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over SIVARAJ, and further in view of Ohara et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0406511 (hereinafter called Ohara).
Regarding claim 3, SIVARAJ teaches wherein the reclined position in which (i) the seat bottom frame is disposed at an angle relative to horizontal (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 120); and (ii) an angle between the seat bottom frame and the seatback frame (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 120 & 110).
But SIVARAJ is silent regarding the reclined position is a zero-gravity position.
However, Simpson teaches the reclined position is a zero-gravity position (See e.g., FIGS. 4D & 21; ¶s [0118] & [0137]).
Accordingly, because SIVARAJ and Simpson taught a seat assembly in a reclined position, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of SIVARAJ and Simpson before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seat assembly of SIVARAJ the reclined position is a zero-gravity position, as taught in the analogous art of Simpson. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing even weight distribution such that the loading applied to the occupant is substantially uniform, and providing improved comfort to the occupant when the seat is disposed in the reclined configuration, as suggested by Simpson (See e.g., ¶s [0118] & [0148]).
In the combination, SIVARAJ and Simpson teach all of the limitations of the instant claim except in the reclined position an angle between the seat bottom frame and the seatback frame is at least 95 degrees. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the reclined position an angle between the seat bottom frame and the seatback frame is at least 95 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, for example, as disclosed in SIVARAJ at FIG. 3 elements 120 & 110, and Simpson at FIGS. 4D & 21; paragraphs [0118] & [0137] a seat in the reclined position an angle between the seat bottom frame and the seatback frame to provide even weight distribution such that the loading applied to the occupant is substantially uniform, and improved comfort to the occupant when the seat is disposed in the reclined configuration, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 are allowed.
Claims 3-4 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: The prior art of record fails to show alone or in combination, the following, in summary, as claimed:
A seat assembly with a V-shaped configuration with the seat bottom frame rotatably coupled to the front leg of the V-shape, the seatback frame rotatably coupled to the rear leg of the V-shape, and the middle portion of the V-shape rotatably coupled with a second track second track of a track assembly of the seat assembly; and the frame assembly having a coupling, which includes a shaft and a hook with an open-ended slot, via which the seat bottom frame engages the seatback frame and the shaft is disposed inside or outside of the slot when the seat bottom is engage or disengaged with the seatback frame, respectively, and the seat bottom frame and the seatback frame includes at least one or the other of the shaft and the hook simultaneously; and the rotational axis where the seatback frame is rotatably coupled with the base frame is disposed at a lower height than an intersection between the cushions when the frame assembly is in the design position; and a motor assembly with two motors, couple with the frame assembly, where operation of the second motor to rotate the seatback frame to move the frame assembly to the folded position causes the seat bottom frame to disengage the seatback frame, along with all other elements, limitations, and features of all claims, all of which overcome the cited prior art of record which does not teach or suggest these claimed limitations.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance of all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art
references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any
way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have
reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,
216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158
U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
08 July 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights