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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick Groleau et al. U.S. Patent 10,721,554 B2 (Groleau) in view of Nicholas K. Lade et al. U.S. Patent 11,590,869 B2 (Lade).
Regarding claim 1, Groleau discloses a vehicle seat, comprising: left and right side frames extending vertically (Figure 4A Element 338); an upper frame extending laterally and connecting upper end portions of the side frames to each other (Element 334); a wire member attached to one of the side frames and to the upper frame (Element 306); a plate member (Element 320) connected to the wire member and provided with a support surface; and a device supported by the support surface (Element 328). Groleau does not directly disclose the vehicle seat comprising a seatback joined with a seat cushion wherein the frame components are comprised with a seatback. Lade discloses a vehicle seat comprising a seat back with a rear portion of the seat cushion and the seatback (Figure 1-8, Column 11 Column 41-60).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groleau as taught by Lade to include Lade’s vehicle seat with speakers on the seatback. Such a modification would provide means to secure an audio component on the seatback.
Regarding claim 2, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the plate member (Element 320 Figure 4B and 4C relative to frame members, Groleau) is disposed forward of the upper frame and closer to a center of the seat than the one of the side frames is in a left-right direction.
Regarding claim 3, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the wire member is attached to a front portion of the one of the side frames and to a lower portion of the upper frame (Figure 4A Element 306 with mounting Element 320, Groleau); the plate member is attached to an upper portion of the wire member, and the device is supported by the plate member (as shown in the Figures, Groleau).
Regarding claim 4, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the plate member is disposed to be spaced from the one of the side frames and the upper frame (Figure 4A-4C Element 320, Groleau).
Regarding claim 5, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the wire member and the plate member are formed integrally (Element 306 and 320 are integral, Groleau).
Regarding claim 7, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the wire member includes a first part extending from the one of the side frames toward the center of the seat in the left-right direction (Figure 4B-4C Element 306), a second part extending forward from the upper frame, and a bent part formed by connection between the first part and the second part, and the plate member is attached to an upper portion of the bent part at a surface thereof opposite from the support surface (portion between Element 210 and 312 that connects).
Regarding claim 8, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the support surface is slanted forward and toward the one of the side frames in the left-right direction (Figure 4A-4C Element 320 support face is angled).
Regarding claim 10, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the device comprises a speaker (Element 302), a sound absorbing member (Element 329), and a case (Element 309) accommodating the speaker and the sound absorbing member therein and attached to the plate member, and the sound absorbing member is disposed between the speaker and the case (Figure 6C).
Regarding claim 11, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat comprising the wire member and plate member with the device (Figure 4A-4C). Groleau in view of Lade does not directly disclose the system to comprise another set of elements. Duplication of parts is common and well known in the art. It would have been an obvious modification well known in the art to provide a duplication of parts for an additional set of devices to be secured to the vehicle seat system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick Groleau et al. U.S. Patent 10,721,554 B2 (Groleau) in view of Nicholas K. Lade et al. U.S. Patent 11,590,869 B2 (Lade) in view of Tsutomu Fujikake et al. U.S. Patent 10,696,201 B2 (Fujikake).
Regarding claim 6, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat wherein the wire member connected to the side frames and the upper frame (Figure 4A-4C, Groleau), and the plate member is disposed closer to the center of the vehicle seat than the one saide frame is in the left-right direction (Figure 4A Element 306 is central, Groleau in view Lade of system mounting in a seatback). Groleau in view of Lade does not directly the wire member to be connected to the frames by welding. Fujikake discloses a wire member that is mounted to very and horizontal frames by being is welded to the one of the side frames and to the upper frame (Column 4 Line 35-52).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groleau in view of Lade as taught by Fujikake to include Fujikake’s welded elements. Such a modification would provide a means to adhere elements to the frame structure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick Groleau et al. U.S. Patent 10,721,554 B2 (Groleau) in view of Nicholas K. Lade et al. U.S. Patent 11,590,869 B2 (Lade) in view of Charles Oswald et al. U.S. Patent 9,699,537 B2 (Oswald).
Regarding claim 9, Groleau in view of Lade discloses the vehicle seat comprising side and upper frames (Figure 4A-4C); and a seatback (Lade). Groleau in view of Lade does not directly disclose the vehicle seat comprising a pad supported by the side frames and the upper frame, and a skin material covering the pad, wherein the pad has a first hole opened at an upper portion thereof and formed to extend downward, the skin material has a second hole formed in a position corresponding to the first hole in a front-rear direction and the left-right direction, and at least a part of the device is inserted in the first hole and the second hole. Oswald discloses a vehicle seat comprising a pad (Element 210 Figure 8) supported by the side frames and the upper frame (Figure 6B), and a skin material covering the pad (Element 212), wherein the pad has a first hole opened at an upper portion thereof and formed to extend downward, the skin material has a second hole formed in a position corresponding to the first hole in a front-rear direction and the left-right direction, and at least a part of the device is inserted in the first hole and the second hole (Element 400 region with opening through the pad and trim).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Groleau in view of Lade as taught by Oswald to include Oswald’s pad and skin material. Such a modification would provide a means to protect the device within the vehicle seat structure.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuya Mori U.S. Patent 10,967,774 B2 (Mori) in view of Patrick Groleau et al. U.S. Patent 10,721,554 B2 (Groleau).
Regarding claim 12 Mori discloses a vehicle seat, comprising: a seatback (Figure 1 Element 10) joined to a rear portion of a seat cushion (Column 3 Line 57-65), wherein the seatback comprises: left and right side frames (Element 20) extending vertically; an upper frame (Element 22) extending laterally and connecting upper end portions of the side frames to each other; left and right support members provided on the upper frame and configured to support left and right pillars of a headrest (Element 14), respectively. Mori does not directly disclose a wire member, a plate member, and a device. Groleau discloses a vehicle seat system having a frame comprising a wire member (Element 306) attached to one of the side frames and to the upper frame; a plate member (Element 320) connected to the wire member and provided with a support surface; and a device (Element 328) supported by the support surface, wherein the device is positioned laterally outward of the support member.
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori as taught by Groleau to include Groleau’s wire member, plate member, and device integrated into a vehicle seat. Such a modification would provide a means to secure a device onto a vehicle seat structure.
Regarding claim 13, Mori in view of Groleau discloses the vehicle seat comprising the wire member (Element 306, Groleau). Mori in view of Groleau does not directly disclose the wire member wherein the wire member is formed by a metal rod having a circular cross section. The shape and material of the wire member is a design modification well known in the art. Such a modification would provide a durable material and shaped rod to fit into the form of the vehicle seat structure frames.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights