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 § 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.
Claim 13 is 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.
The term “near” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogisch et. al (US 2002/0041116 A1) in view of Fallen (US 2009/0140558 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Bogisch discloses a seat air conditioner included in a seat [reference character 10] including a seat back [reference character 14] and a headrest [reference character 16] that is attached to an upper portion of the seat back [see Fig. 2], the seat air conditioner comprising: a blower [reference character 40] provided inside the seat; and a first blowing port [reference character 22.1] and a second blowing port [reference characters 22.2 or 22.3] that are formed in the seat back for blowing out air blown from the blower from the seat back.
Bogisch does not disclose that the headrest is height adjustable or that the second blowing port is disposed below the first blowing port, and the first blowing port is opened and closed in conjunction with a height adjustment movement of the headrest.
Fallen discloses a seat ventilation system that includes a blowing port [reference character 10] positioned in a seat back between the seat back and the headrest [see Fig. 2]. Fallen further discloses that the headrest is adjustable and that the first blowing port is opened and closed in conjunction with a height adjustment movement of the headrest [see paragraph 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the seat taught by Bogisch by allowing the headrest to be adjustable such that lowering the headrest blocks the first port outlet, as taught by Fallen, in order to divert airflow away from the neck when it is not needed or desired.
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Bogisch and Fallen disclose that the first blowing port is opened, the headrest is disposed higher than when the first blowing port is blocked [see paragraph 0025 of Fallen].
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Bogisch and Fallen disclose that a plurality of second blowing ports are arranged side by side in a horizontal direction when the seat back is viewed from a front, each of the plurality of second blowing ports being the second blowing port [see Fig. 2 of Bogisch].
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Bogisch and Fallen disclose that a lower end of a main body portion of the headrest [reference character 6] is shaped to block the first blowing port when the headrest blocks the first blowing port, and to be exposed to air blown out from the first blowing port when the headrest opens the first blowing port [see Figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0025].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogisch et. al (US 2002/0041116 A1) in view of Fallen (US 2009/0140558 A1) in view of McElroy et. al (US 2020/0122613 A1).
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Bogisch and Fallen disclose that a plurality of first blowing ports are arranged side by side in a horizontal direction when the seat back is viewed from a front, each of the plurality of first blowing ports being the first blowing port.
McElroy discloses a seatback with a blowing port [reference character 66] that is divided into a plurality of blowing ports by a plurality of vanes [reference character 144] that allow for selective positioning of the vent [see paragraph 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Bogisch and Fallen by dividing the first port into a plurality of blowing ports by a plurality of vanes, as taught by McElroy, to allow for selective positioning of the vent [see paragraph 0060 of McElroy].
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogisch et. al (US 2002/0041116 A1) in view of Fallen (US 2009/0140558 A1) in view of Saito et. al (US 5,102,189).
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Bogisch and Fallen do not disclose that the seat includes an active ingredient generator at a position leading to the first blowing port and the second blowing port.
Saito discloses a seat [see Fig. 2] that includes a plurality of outlet ports [reference characters 11a and 11b] and an active ingredient generator [reference character 4] at a position leading to the first blowing port and the second blowing port [see Fig. 3].
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught b Bogisch and Fallen by including the active ingredient generator, as taught by Saito, in order to “…emit a good smell from an air outlet hole on the surface of the seat” [see Abstract of Saito].
With respect to claim 12 the combination of Borsich, Fallen, and Saito disclose that a guide path [see annotated Fig. below] is formed in the seat back to guide air from the blower to the first blowing port and the second blowing port, and the active ingredient generator is disposed in the guide path.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Borsich, Fallen, and Saito disclose that the active ingredient generator is disposed near the first blowing port and the second blowing port [see Fig. 3 of Saito].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights