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 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 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.
Claims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreessen (EP 3515757 B1) in view of Hofmann (DE 102015206962 A1).
Claim 1 – Dreessen discloses a plastic and metal hybrid seat backrest support structure, particularly for vehicle seats or rear seat benches. Dreessen teaches a vehicle seat support element (element 10), comprising a body made of plastic material (10K), a metal reinforcement (10M) attached to the body, and four interface elements (each corner of side edges 10M-1 and 10M-2 in figures 3C and 3D) for interfacing of the seat support element with its environment, wherein three of the interface elements are secured to the metal reinforcement. Dreessen does not teach the fourth interface element only being secured to the plastic body.
Hofmann teaches, in figure 15 and explains in the description, an interface element (elements 129A and 130A) as being overmolded and secured only to the plastic body of a vehicle seat backrest structural assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Dreessen to overmold an interface element, securing the interface element solely to the plastic body, to produce the seat element quicker and cheaper, as well as use less metal, providing a lighter seat element.
Claim 2 – Dreessen teaches, in figures 3B, 3C, and 3D, the body extends between a lower edge (element 10M-6) and an upper edge (element 10M-3) in an elevation direction and between two side edges (elements 10M-1 and 10M-2) in a transverse direction, substantially perpendicular to the elevation direction, the junction between the side edges and the lower edge forming the lower corners of the body and the junction between the side edges and the upper edge forming the upper corners of the body, the interface elements extending in the vicinity of the lower and upper corners of the body. In figures 3C and 3D, the interface element locations can be seen in each corner of the two side edges (elements 10M-1 and 10M-2).
Claim 3 – Dreessen teaches, in figure 3B, the reinforcement comprises a first branch (element 10M-2) extending substantially in the elevation direction along one of the side edges of the body and a second branch (10M-3) extending substantially in the transverse direction along the upper edge or the lower edge of the body, the first branch being attached at one of its ends to the second branch.
Claim 4 – Dreessen teaches that the two interface elements extend at the opposite transverse ends of the second branch, a third interface element being attached to the free end of the first branch, opposite the end of the first branch attached to the second branch. An interface element is taught at each of the three corners created by the two branches in figures 3C and 3D.
Claim 5 – Dreessen teaches, in figure 3B, the reinforcement comprises a third branch extending between the first branch and the second branch in a direction inclined relative to the elevation direction and to the transverse direction. Element 10M-12 teaches this third branch inclined relative to the elevation and transverse directions.
Claim 6 – Dreessen teaches, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the description, the reinforcement (metal structure) and the fourth interface element (receiving sleeve) are overmolded by the body (plastic structure).
Claim 7 – Dreessen teaches that the interface elements extending at the lower corners of the body are articulation elements of the support element to its environment (10M-5 of figure 3A), the support element being rotatable about an axis of rotation (y1 of figures 1A, 1B, and 3A) passing through said articulation elements.
Claim 8 – Dreessen teaches, in figure 4A and describes in the description, that the interface elements extending in the vicinity of the upper corners of the body are locking elements (10M-1c) for locking the support element to its environment.
Claim 9 – Dreessen teaches, in figure 5A, the body comprises reinforcing ribs integral with the rest of the body as element 1v, and describes element 1v as “ribs” in the description.
Claim 10 – Dreessen, in figure 2, teaches the support element as a part of a vehicle seat backrest.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 5 that the intent behind Dreessen’s disclosure is to form an optimized load path in which the connecting profile (10M-12) and central rib (1a) follow a main load line (H) so that the load is directed into the side profiles (10M-1 and 10M-2). Applicant argues that modifying Dreessen’s disclosure to overmold one of the four interface elements in the plastic body, rather than having all four interface elements attached to the metal reinforcement (10M), would render Dreessen’s disclosure unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as it would disrupt the load path Dreessen seeks to optimize.
Dreessen teaches a singular load path, traveling horizontally from point P1 to point P2. The load path is therefore only taught as connecting near two of the four interface elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would still have the motivation to modify Dreessen’s disclosure with an overmolded interface element, similar to that taught by Hofmann, as it would not necessarily interfere with either of the two interface elements along the load line H.
Applicant also argues on page 5 that Hofmann does not disclose a metal reinforcement. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually regarding the metal reinforcement, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference to Hofmann is used in the rejection to show the teaching of the fourth interface element being attached solely through overmolding as Dreessen teaches it both attached to the overall metal reinforcement as well as being overmolded.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Dreessen does not teach a third branch extending between the first branch and the second branch. The invention as claimed is silent on the location of the connection of the third branch and only states it extends between the first and second branches. In Dreessen’s disclosure, the third branch (10M-12) extends between the first branch (10M-2) and the second branch (10M-3) in a manner not unlike the third branch extends between the first and second branch as disclosed in figure 2 of the claimed invention.
For the reasons explained in the examiner’s response to arguments, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, being that claims 2-10 depend on claim 1, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for claims 2-10 as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 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, DAVID DUNN can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights