April 1, 2026
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, line 10, “a weather resistant covers” is unclear and confusing language. The word “a” suggests there is a single structure being described. However, the word “covers” is plural. Should the word “covers” be - - cover - - instead? On line 10, “weather resistant cover” lacks antecedent basis.
The aforementioned problem renders the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO KENJI (JP 2009120079 A) in view of Schwintek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,034,270 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
204
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ONO KENJI teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a ventilated seat cushion cover; a seat cushion ; an air flow distribution system including air ducts 9, 10, 11 and air exits inside the seat cushion to direct an airstream directed toward the seat occupant (see the specification where it reads “The seat cushion duct 10 has a large number of conditioned air outlets on the seat surface side of the seat cushion 1. The seat back duct 11 has a large number of conditioned air outlets on the seat surface side of the seat back 2.”); at least one one-way valve in the air exits directing the airstream toward the seat occupant (see the specification where it reads “However, a backflow prevention valve (one-way valve) that allows only the flow to the seat side may be provided. In this case, electrical valve control is not required because backflow is prevented by mechanical valve operation.”); a blower 18,19,20 including an airflow intake moved by a high flow rate, high pressure blower motor (not shown but is inherent since motors are needed to operate the fans); ONO KENJI further comprises a heating system including a low-cost resistance heater placed in the airstream within the air flow distribution ducts that are in communication with the blower but does not teach weather resistant covers over the air ducts.
PNG
media_image2.png
216
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Schwintek et al. teach the concept of using a weather resistant cover 51 over air ducts 50, the weather resistant cover 51 including hydrophobic material over the air exits 50. Schwintek et al. also teaches that the cover can be made of a hydrophobic 3D spacer mesh material (See the specification at column 4, lines 4-6 where it reads “The port 50 may have a covering that is formed of a hydrophobic mesh material 51 to reduce an amount of water entering the port 50.”). As for claim 3, Schwintek et al. also includes both a cooling and heating system to be old (see the Abstract where it reads “A heating and cooling module is disposed at least partially within the cover support. The seat assembly further comprises a first air inlet in communication with the heating and cooling module. The first air inlet communicates air from a first port in the seat cover to the heating and cooling module.” as well as throughout the specification where the heating system is described). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ventilated seat assembly, to include weather resistant covers over the air ducts, as taught by Schwintek et al., since the weather resistant covers would reduce the amount of water entering the air ducts and prevent the air ducts from the harmful effects of wear and tear and various weather elements.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO KENJI (JP 2009120079 A) in view of Schwintek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,034,270 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kozlowski (U.S. Patent No. 10,632,878 B2).
ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach a desiccant container added to the air flow distribution ducts to dry the airstream passing within.
PNG
media_image3.png
234
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
152
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Kozlowski teaches the concept of adding desiccant container 150 to air flow distribution ducts to dry the airstream passing within. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ventilated seat assembly, as taught by ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al., to include a desiccant container, as taught by Kozlowski, since it would pull fresh ambient air into the air desiccant container 150. Ambient air passes through the desiccant container 150.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO KENJI (JP 2009120079 A) in view of Schwintek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,034,270 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GUNDERSON MAURICE EDWARD PHILLIPS et al. (DE 112015005666 T5)
ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach an inline thermoelectric device upstream from the blower motor, wherein heated and cooled air pass there over, thereby heating and cooling conditioning the airstream which will eventually reach the seat occupant. However, GUNDERSON MAURICE EDWARD PHILLIPS et al. teaches the use of an inline thermoelectric device 320 upstream from a blower motor, wherein heated and cooled air pass there over, thereby heating and cooling conditioning the airstream which will eventually reach the seat occupant. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ventilated seat assembly, as taught by ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al., to include an inline thermoelectric device, as taught by GUNDERSON MAURICE EDWARD PHILLIPS et al., since the inline thermoelectric device is a solid-state component in which it is a solid-state design with no moving parts, which offers reliability and precision that mechanical systems cannot.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO KENJI (JP 2009120079 A) in view of Schwintek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,034,270 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0144844 A1)
ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach an inline thermoelectric device upstream from the blower motor, wherein heated and cooled air pass there over, thereby heating and cooling conditioning the airstream which will eventually reach the seat occupant. However, Park et al. teaches the use of an inline thermoelectric device 200 upstream from a blower motor, wherein heated and cooled air pass there over, thereby heating and cooling conditioning the airstream which will eventually reach the seat occupant. As far for Claim 6, Park et al. also teach a splash guard 300 to allow for airflow to the blower intake while deflecting splash. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ventilated seat assembly, as taught by ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al., to include an inline thermoelectric device, as taught by Park et al., since the inline thermoelectric device is a solid-state component in which it is a solid-state design with no moving parts, which offers reliability and precision that mechanical systems cannot.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO KENJI (JP 2009120079 A) in view of Schwintek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,034,270 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ANDROULAKIS IOANNIS et al. (WO 2016100697 A1)
ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach a float valve mechanism that blocks ingress of liquids by the floating of a low-density member into a sealing position of the blower intake. However, ANDROULAKIS IOANNIS et al. teaches the use of a float valve mechanism that blocks ingress of liquids by the floating of a low density member into a sealing position of the blower intake (see the paragraph [0081] where it reads “The fluid level sensor may be a float valve sensor…..”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ventilated seat assembly, as taught by ONO KENJI in view of Schwintek et al., to include a float valve mechanism that blocks ingress of liquids by the floating of a low density member into a sealing position of the blower intake, as taught by ANDROULAKIS IOANNIS et al., since it could be used with a fluid level sensor which could be used to detect a lack of fluid in the bus and to protect the pump from damage by running dry and since it would monitor actual fluid levels and make a diagnostic decision based on change in fluid levels over time if there is a slow leak.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Conclusion
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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636