Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 1, 2025 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
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.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2015/0321614 (“Line”).
Regarding claim 2, Line discloses a conveyance seat (figs. 1-3, para. [0024]), comprising: a frame (150), wherein the frame includes a pair of side frames (154/158) separated from each other in a seat width direction (fig. 3) and a connecting frame (162) that connects upper portions of the pair of the side frames (fig. 3, para. [0028]), and wherein each of the pair of the side frames is provided with a reinforcement portion that reinforces the side frame, and extends continuously from a center portion of the side frame in a longitudinal direction to a lower portion of the connecting frame. As illustrated in figs. 3 & 10, the side frames comprise a bulged portion, i.e. reinforcement portion, that extends inwardly from an outside end of the side frames and extends along most of the length of the side frames such that it extends longitudinally from a center portion to a lower portion of the connecting frame. The reinforcing portion/bulge is illustrated by the bead in annotated figure 10 of Line, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the reinforcement portion is a bulged portion that extends inward from an outside end of the side frames. This is similar to Applicant’s reinforcement portions (i.e. elements 22h & 32h illustrated in Applicant’s originally filed figures 4 & 5), and thus reinforces the side frames in the same ways as Applicant’s invention (e.g. by providing rigidity and structural integrity). The reinforcement portions of Line also help reinforce the portion of the side frame abutting the inside surface of the reinforcement portions.
Claim 2 further recites each side frame of the pair of the side frames includes a first side frame piece that extends upward from a lower end of the side frame beyond a central portion of the side frame in a height direction of the side frame, and a second side frame piece disposed to overlap an upper portion of the first side frame piece. The two pieces are illustrated in annotated fig. 10 of Line provided above. When viewing a perspective view of the frame as illustrated in figure 3, the second side frame piece extends to the top connecting piece—thus overlapping at least a portion of an upper portion of the first side frame piece. In addition, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer that the first side frame piece extends upward from a lower end of the side frame beyond a central portion of the side frame. This is because the cross section of figure 10 of Line is taken at a lower end of the side frame (see fig. 2 of Line). Thus, the first side frame piece is disposed at least on the lower end of the side frame. Further, the first side frame piece is connected to element 168 (see figs. 3 & 10, para. [0028]). Since element 168 extends along the entire length of the side frame, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer that the first side frame piece extends beyond a central portion of the side frame in order to maintain attachment or contact with element 168.
Claim 2 further recites the second side frame piece includes a side wall, a rear wall that extends in the seat width direction from a rear end of the side wall and a front wall that extends in the seat width direction from a front end of the side wall, and wherein the reinforcement portion includes a bead raised from a surface of the second side frame piece of the side frame, a rear reinforcement portion provided in the rear wall, and a front reinforcement portion provided in the front wall. As illustrated in annotated fig. 10 of Line, above, the side wall, front wall, rear wall, and a bead raised from the side wall surface in a seat width direction are all shown. In addition, the front reinforcement portion can be interpreted as the flange of the front wall extending rearwardly, or the portion of the front wall contacting the front wall of the first side frame piece. The rear reinforcement portion can be interpreted as the flange extending in the forward direction, or the V-shaped protrusion. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “reinforcement portion” includes a projecting rim such as a flange (Applicant’s originally filed specification also states that the flanges 31e & 31f are for reinforcement).
Claim 3 recites the reinforcement portion is provided in an overlapping part in which the first side frame piece and the second side frame piece overlap each other. As illustrated in annotated figure 10 of Line, provided in the rejection to claim 2 above, the side frames comprise first and second pieces that overlap in at least the longitudinal direction. As further illustrated, the reinforcement portion is within the overlapping portions of the side frame pieces.
Claim 8 recites the overlapping part comprises a rear overlapping part formed on a rear side of the side frame and a front overlapping part formed on a front side of the side frame, and wherein a length of the rear overlapping part in the seat width direction is longer than a length of the front overlapping part in the seat width direction. This limitation is taught by Line as illustrated in annotated figure 10 of Line provided in the rejection to claim 2, above. The rear overlapping part is interpreted as comprising the rear walls of the first and second pieces (since they partially overlap in the front to back direction and in the longitudinal direction). The front overlapping part is interpreted as comprising the front walls of the first and second pieces (since they partially overlap in the front to back direction and in the longitudinal direction). As illustrated, the width of the rear walls of the second part is greater than the width of the front walls of the first and second pieces since the rear walls extend further inward in the seat width direction.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line.
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, Line teaches all the limitations. Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not reasonably infer the first side frame piece extends from the lower end of the side frame to beyond a central portion of the side frame, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states that changes in size or relative dimensions do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art if the prior art device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently. In this case, the cross section of figure 10 of Line is taken at a lower end of the side frame (see fig. 2 of Line). Merely extending the height of the first side frame piece so that it extends above a central portion of the side frame would not make the side frame of Line perform differently (it will still be able to perform its intended function as a support/frame for the seat). Thus, merely raising the height of the first side frame does not patentably distinguish the claim from Line.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons detailed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Line fails to teach the reinforcement portions including a bead, rear reinforcement portion, and front reinforcement portion.
As illustrated in annotated fig. 10 of Line, provided in the rejection to claim 2, Line teaches flanges on the rear and front walls, and a bead raised in the seat width direction from the side wall. The front and rear flanges can be interpreted as reinforcement portions (Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches its front and rear flanges 31e & 31f are for reinforcement). Further, the bead raised in the seat width direction also abuts the first side frame piece—thus also providing reinforcement (this is very similar to Applicant’s reinforcing bead 22h illustrated in Applicant’s figure 4).
On pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Line fails to teach the first side frame piece extends upward from a lower end of the side frame beyond a central portion of the side frame, and the second side frame piece overlaps an upper portion of the first side frame piece.
As detailed in the rejection to claim 2, the perspective view of the side frame illustrated in fig. 3. of Line illustrates the second/outer side frame piece extending to a top connecting portion. Thus, since the second/outer side frame piece overlaps the first side frame piece and extends to the top connecting portion, this second/outer side frame piece overlaps at least a portion of an upper portion of the first side frame piece. In addition, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer the first side frame piece extends above a central portion of the side frame (see the 102 rejection to claim 2 above). However, even if one of skill in the art would not make this inference, the cross section of figure 10 of Line is taken at a lower end of the side frame (see fig. 2 of Line). Merely extending the height of the first side frame piece so that it extends above a central portion of the side frame would be an obvious design choice as detailed in the 103 rejection of claim 2, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”