0DETAILED 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 without traverse of species 1, figures 1-2 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/03/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huynh (US 7963553 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Huynh (US 7963553 B2) discloses a vehicle seat for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a backrest frame with a back region (Huynh, figure 1, item 10) and a side region (Huynh, figure 2, items 6 and 41b);
at least one force converter (Huynh, figure 2, items 41b), wherein the force converter has an impact region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout below, impact region), which impact region is arranged on the side region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout below, impact region on the side region), for absorbing an input force (Huynh, figure 2, impact region capable of absorbing input force), a deflecting region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout below, deflection region), and a thrust region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout below, thrust region), which thrust region is arranged on the back region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout below, thrust region on back region), for outputting an output force, and wherein the force converter is configured to convert the input force into the output force by passively utilizing inertia of a vehicle occupant without any sensor, airbag, or motor (Huynh, figure 2, force converter converts input force into an output force; the force converter is capable of this using an occupant’s inertia without using sensors, airbags, or motors);
wherein the impact region is configured such that, in an event of a side impact, the impact region is in contact with a vehicle occupant, and the input force, which is caused at the same time by inertia of the vehicle occupant, brings about an input displacement of the impact region relative to the side region (Huynh, figure 2, impact region is capable of contacting a vehicle occupant in a crash where the occupant displaces the impact region);
wherein the deflecting region is configured to deflect the input force, which is absorbed by the impact region, and input displacement to the thrust region (Huynh, figure 2, deflection region capable of transmitting the input force to the thrust region); and
wherein the thrust region is configured such that the input force and the input displacement bring about an output displacement of the thrust region with an output force, as a result of which the vehicle occupant in contact with the thrust region is moved away from the back region (Huynh, figure 2, occupant would contact side region and away from the back region during an impact).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, further comprising:
seat upholstery of the vehicle seat (Huynh, figure 2, item 102),
wherein the impact region and the thrust region are arranged between the seat upholstery and the backrest frame (Huynh, figure 2, impact and thrust region between upholstery and backrest frame), and the vehicle occupant is in contact with the impact region and the thrust region via the seat upholstery (Huynh, figure 2, seat upholstery between the occupant and the regions).
Regarding claim 13, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 12, wherein the seat upholstery is compressible (Huynh, figure 2, item 102, foam upholstery).
Regarding claim 14, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein the force converter is configured as a lever system,
Regarding claim 15, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein the force converter is configured as a lever system (Huynh, figure 2, force converter can be used as a lever system), and the impact region and the thrust region are configured as lever elements which are connected to each other via the deflecting region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout above, deflection region between the impact and thrust region), which deflection region is in the form of a pivot point, and form an angle to each other (Huynh, figure 2, see callout above, impact deflection and thrust regions at an angle with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 16, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 15, wherein, in a first lever position of the impact region before the side impact, the impact region is spaced apart at least in a partial portion from the side region (Huynh, figure 2, dashed lines before impact), and in a second lever position of the impact region after the side impact, the partial portion is in contact with the side region (Huynh, figure 2, solid lines after impact).
Regarding claim 20, Huynh discloses a motor vehicle comprising a vehicle seat according to claim 11 (Huynh, claim 16).
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 Huynh (US 7963553 B2) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 20070145727 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 16, except:
wherein, in the first lever position, a space between the side region and the impact region is free of seat upholstery.
Inoue (US 20070145727 A1) teaches a space between a side region and the impact region is free of seat upholstery (Inoue, figure 2, item 11f).
Huynh and Inoue are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seat safety devices. 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 Huynh with the space between a side region and impact region free of upholstery of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make it easier to inspect the safety devices of the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of applicant’s reply, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. This objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huyng fails to disclose/teach a force converter with impact, deflecting, and thrust regions namely because there is no disclosure that the arms mapped to in Huyng are configured with such regions nor of a passive force conversion mechanism that move the occupant away from the back region using the occupant’s inertia.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant instead points to the differences between Huyng and applicant’s disclosure but fails to explain why the mapping for the force converter and related regions do not meet the requirements of the claim limitations. It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments that reading elements of Hyunh as he "impact region," "deflecting region," and "thrust region" in the context of claim 1 requires the application of hindsight are unpersuasive. Applicant’s claims are broad enough as mapped that they still read on the claims as mapped. Here no obviousness analysis is applied, and the mapping is based on whether the mapped features meet the requirements of the claim.
Applicant argues that Inoue fails to teach a space between the side regions and the impact region is free of upholstery because the space of Inoue is designed to accommodate an expanding airbag rather than allow unimpeded lever travel
In response to applicant's argument that the space of Inoue is a space to allow an airbag to expand, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Huyng and Inoue because Huynh has its own established airbag inflation pathway.
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, the invention of Huynh is modified with the space between a side region and impact region free of upholstery of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make it easier to inspect the safety devices of the seat.
Applicant argues that Huyng and Inoue are non-analogous because there are differences is the structures disclosed in these pieces of art
In response to applicant's argument that Inoue is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Huyng and Inoue are related to vehicle seat safety systems keeping occupants safe in the event of a collision just as applicant’s specification discusses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Breuninger (DE 102007013106 A1) teaches a seat with an embedded airbag; the seat would meet when airbag is inflated?
Ros (DE 102012005691 A1) teaches a side cushion with a movable frame/lever structure embedded inside of the cushion
David (GB 2575642 A) teaches an infant seat with cushion and airbag
Komatsu (JP H07117542 A) is a side cushion with a movable frame/lever structure embedded inside of the cushion
Lee (KR 20110064490 A) teaches an infant seat with inflatable air tubes acting as a cushion
Yoshida (US 7293828 B2) teaches an infant seat with cushion and frame
Deng (US 11279269 B1) teaches an armrest like structure with a net
Inoue (US 20070145727 A1) teaches a seat with airbag
Honda (US 20160311349 A1) teaches armrests with airbags
Rist (US 20180370397 A1) is a side cushion with a movable frame/lever structure embedded inside of the cushion
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 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