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Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
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 “force converter [that] is fastened to the backrest frame” in claim 23 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, “wherein the force converter is independent of any airbag module.” does not have support in the application as originally filed.
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, 20, 22, and 24-30 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, position of the dashed lines can be taken 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, position of the solid lines can be taken after impact).
Regarding claim 20, Huynh discloses a motor vehicle comprising a vehicle seat according to claim 11 (Huynh, claim 16).
Regarding claim 22, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 15, wherein, in a first lever position before the side impact, the thrust region runs substantially parallel to the back region (Huynh, figure 2, see callout above, thrust region shown substantially parallel to a back region).
Regarding claim 23, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 12,
wherein the force converter is arranged between the seat upholstery and to the backrest frame (Huynh, figure 2, force converter between upholstery and backrest frame).
Regarding claim 24, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein the force converter is independent of any airbag module (Huynh, figure 2, item 4b, right force converter is independent of the airbag module on the left side).
Regarding claim 25, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein the vehicle seat comprises a plurality of force converters (Huynh, figure 2, items 4a and 4b, force converters on both right and left sides).
Regarding claim 26, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 25, wherein a first force converter of the plurality of force converters is arranged on the side region, and a second force converter of the plurality of force converters is arranged on a side region opposite the side region (Huynh, figure 2, items 4a and 4b, force converters on opposite sides of the seat).
Regarding claim 27, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 15, wherein the output displacement of the thrust region moves the vehicle occupant forward in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (Huynh, figure 2, output displacement would move an occupant longitudinally forwards).
Regarding claim 28, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 15, wherein the thrust region is angled to achieve a direction of action of the output force (Huynh, figure 2, see callout above, thrust region; thrust region is at an angle and thrust region can deform to an angle during an impact in achieving a particular output force direction).
Regarding claim 29, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein a movement direction of the vehicle occupant away from the back region contains a component in a lateral direction of the motor vehicle, facilitating sliding on the side region (Huynh, figure 2, impact and thrust regions create movement direction away from back that has a lateral component).
Regarding claim 30, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 12, wherein the seat upholstery is formed from a foamed material (Huynh, figure 2, item 102, col 4 lines 15-18).
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh (US 7963553 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Huynh discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 11, wherein the thrust region is spaced further from the back region after the side impact than before the side impact (Huynh, figure 2, see callout above, thrust region; thrust region can deform to an during an impact, creating space between the back and side regions).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spacing between the thrust region of the force converter and the back region is subject to movement between these parts and to deformation, particularly of the force converter made of foam (see claim 30 below). Forces produced by the occupant’s inertia during a side impact collision would impart forces onto the regions of the force converter, causing deformation of the force converter and in turn increasing the space between the thrust region of the force converter and the back region. As such It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to meet this limitation with Huynh in order to account for deformation and absorb impact energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of applicant’s reply, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9 of applicant’s reply, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 28 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Based on these arguments pointing to the disclosure, figure 1 shows such an angled thrust region. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the limitation “wherein the force converter is independent of any airbag module” has support in the specification in ¶19 and that ¶15 also states that the force converter as a passive mechanical system that operates “by passively utilizing inertia of a vehicle occupant without any sensor, airbag, or motor” which would provide support for this limitation.
¶19 reads “According to a preferred embodiment, the force converter is designed as a lever system, wherein the impact region and the thrust region are designed as lever elements which are connected to each other via the deflecting region, which is in the form of a pivot point, and form an angle to each other.” Nowhere does this paragraph mention independence from or mention airbags whatsoever. Hence this part of the specification does not provide support for claim 24 as amended.
¶15 reads “…For this purpose, the energy resulting from the side impact is used and, according to the invention, the inertia of the vehicle occupant is also utilized. It is therefore possible to dispense with certain sensors for detecting the side impact, and with additional airbags, electric motors, etc., which simplifies the production and makes the latter more cost- effective” however, this is not the same as requiring independence from an airbag as does not provide support for claim 24 as amended.
Applicant argues that Huynh fails to disclose/teach a force converter with impact, deflecting, and thrust regions because Huynh is designed for a different purpose than applicant’s invention
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 Huynh and applicant’s disclosure but fails to explain why these differences mean that Huynh 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 argues that Huynh requires an airbag which contradicts the requirement that the force converter operate “without any sensor, airbag, or motor” and Huynh’s adjusting elements fail to meet this claims because they are not configurated to perform any force conversion.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., without any sensor, airbag, or motor) actually reads “configured to convert the input force into the output force by passively utilizing inertia of a vehicle occupant without any sensor, airbag, or motor” in the claims, merely requiring that the force conversion does not use any sensor, airbag, or motor, not that none of these features exist in the disclosure.
Huynh meets the limitations of the claim as noted in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Huynh does not disclose that ‘impact,’ ‘deflecting,’ ‘thrust’ regions, and that such regions would be configured to perform functions to convert lateral forces into a thrust for moving an occupant.
In response to applicant's argument that Huynh fails to teach structures that function to convert lateral force into a thrust force explicitly, 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. Here the structure of Huynh is capable of performing the required function and thus it meet the claim.
Applicant argues that Huynh the mapping of dashed and solid lines is improper.
The dashed and solid lines offer possible locations of the arms before and after a collision.
Applicant argues that the “configured to” language requires a structure designed for this purpose, not a structure being capable of meeting this function and that because the arms of Huynh are part of an adjustment system they can not meet the requirements of a passive force conversion mechanism.
The language “configured to …” indicates a functional limitation and a functional limitation expands on the claim by requiring a function. In a structural claims, which do not include particular steps as method claims do, this means that anticipation/obviousness/infringement are based on whether the structure can perform the required function, not whether they are designed for a particular purpose as applicant purports. Supposing applicant’s arguments where taken as fact, then someone could say that they didn’t intend to perform this function despite having an identical structure and still not infringe. Hence this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that per MPEP §2114, section III, because there are structural differences between Huynh and the claimed force converter, Huynh can not anticipate the claims. These differences are a) a second arm of Huynh describes a second arm forming a housing for an airbag module which contrasts with the limitation “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” of claim 1; b) Arms designed to pivot around an axis … for backrest adjustment which contrasts with the claimed force converter requiring distinct impact, deflecting, and thrust regions connecting via a thrust region that converts lateral input forces into output forces that move the occupant away from the back region; and c) Huynh lacks a structure corresponding with a deflection region because the bend in Huynh’s adjusting arm is where the arm wraps around the frame structure, not a force redirecting mechanism.
The corresponding limitation does not actually preclude the inclusion of sensors, airbags, or motors (much less a housing), but merely require that force converter can covert force without relying/utilizing a sensors, airbags, or motors. Hence this is not a structural difference between Huynh and the claimed force converter.
The limitation requiring impact, deflection, and thrust regions performing force conversion as claimed are met by Huynh (see the rejection of claim 1 above). As such this is not a structural difference between Huynh and the claimed force converter.
The limitation requiring the deflection region reads “at least one force converter, wherein the force converter has … a deflecting 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…” Nothing here prevents the Huynh from reading on claim 1 as noted in the rejection above. As such this is not a structural difference between Huynh and the claimed force converter.
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.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights