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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed June 18, 2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed June 18, 2024 are approved.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harth (US20080143163A1).
Note a seat assembly, comprising: a seat frame (3); a seat base (seat cushion as referenced in line 8 of ¶ 0021) coupled to the seat frame; and a seat back coupled to the seat frame and including: a seat back frame (8); a recliner (7) rotatably coupling the seat back frame with the seat frame; a back panel (4) including: an upper section (note at 18) rigidly coupled to the seat back frame; and a lower section (note at 22) coupled to the seat back frame and configured to disengage the seat back frame to facilitate bending of the seat back frame to limit a force transfer from the seat back frame to the recliner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harth (US20080143163A1) in view of Hallet et al (US5439272).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of a seat belt assembly including a first portion coupled to a top of the seat back frame.
The secondary reference teaches configuring a seat assembly with a seat belt assembly including a first portion (21) coupled to a top of a seat back frame (10) (by way of members 13 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by adding a seat belt assembly as including a first portion coupled to a top of the seat back frame. This modification conventionally enhances user safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 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. A seat assembly having multiple seating and headrest portions is shown by Murthy (US8439448). A seat assembly having a back that is mounted on a panel assembly is shown by each of EP1714827, Eklind (US20010038233A1), and Barecki et al (US4109959).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/February 20, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636