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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/743,847, filed on May 13, 2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-20 and 22-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12043145 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements of the examined application claims are fully recited by the reference claims. The patent recites the same structure- seat frame, seat rails, first and second support links and driving device. While the patent does not explicitly claim that the seat frame parts switch positions, this is the normal and intended use of this seat structure and such a function would have been the obvious and normal method of operating the seat.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 20 and 21 appear to be missing the word "is" prior to the word "connected" in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-27 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.
Claims 13 and 18 recite the limitation "the support plate" in limitations regarding the driving device. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pair of first support brackets" and “the pair of second support brackets” in the limitation regarding how the support linkages are attached to . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the support brackets are introduced in claim 15 rather than claim 13.
Claims 14-16 and 19-27 are rejected because they depend on claim 13, which includes a limitation with insufficient antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 13, 19, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US-3743350-A) in view of Peter (US-7726730-B2).
Claim 13 – Allen discloses a hinge-supported folding seat arranged to tilt, lay flat, and reverse directions.
Allen teaches a seat for a vehicle (mentioned in paragraph 4 of the background) comprising:
a seat frame configured such that a first seat frame part and a second seat frame part are formed integrally with each other at a predetermined angle (figure 1);
a pair of first support links provided with front ends connected to the first seat frame part using hinges and rear ends connected to rear parts of the movable rails of the seat rails using hinges;
(Figure 3 shows a first support link element 26 hingedly connected at elements 30 and 31, connecting to the seat frame and movable rail respectively. The figures do not show the opposite side of the seat, but paragraph 9 of the background/summary explains that the mechanism is arranged at each of the opposite ends of the seat.)
a pair of second support links provided with front ends connected to front parts of the movable rails of the seat rails using hinges and rear ends connected to the second seat frame part using hinges; and
(Figure 3 shows a second support link element 19 hingedly connected at elements 22 and 25, connecting to the seat frame and movable rail respectively. The figures do not show the opposite side of the seat, but paragraph 9 of the background/summary explains that the mechanism is arranged at each of the opposite ends of the seat.)
a driving device (element 16 in figures 1-3) fixedly mounted on the support plate (element 17 in figures 1-3) so as to move either the pair of first support links or the pair of second support links,
(The user manually moves element 16, driving the movement of the support links 26 and 19.)
wherein the first and the second seat frame parts are configured to switch positions with each other such that any of the first seat frame part and the second seat frame part is used as a seat cushion or a seatback (figures 4-6).
Allen does not teach a pair of seat rails, each comprising a stationary rail and a movable rail mounted on the stationary rail so as to be movable forwards and rearwards.
Peter discloses a seat pivotable about an axis to allow the seat to face backwards. Peter teaches a pair of seat rails (elements 10a and 12a of figure 2b), each comprising a stationary rail (element 10a) and a movable rail (element 12a) mounted on the stationary rail so as to be movable forwards and rearwards (figures 3 and 4a show the seat sliding along the rail). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with the seat rails of Peter to allow the user to position the seat forward or rearward per the user’s preference to increase the user’s comfortability.
Claim 19 – Allen, disclosed above, teaches a suspension device fixedly mounted on a support plate connected to the stationary rails of the seat rails, and connected to the seat frame using a hinge.
(In a further embodiment shown in figure 7, element 52 is a suspension device fixedly mounted on a support plate connected to the stationary rails, element 53, and connected to the seat frame using a hinge, element 26a.)
Claim 24 – Allen, disclosed above, does not teach a first leg rest frame to be also used as a headrest frame is mounted at a distal end of the first seat frame part, and a second leg rest frame to be also used as a headrest frame is mounted at a distal end of the second seat frame part.
Peter, disclosed above, teaches a first leg rest frame (element 154 in figure 4a) to be also used as a headrest frame (element 154 in figure 4e) is mounted at a distal end of the first seat frame part, and a second leg rest frame (element 153 in figure 4e) to be also used as a headrest frame (element 153 in figure 4a) is mounted at a distal end of the second seat frame part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen to include the headrest and leg rest, used interchangeably depending on the direction the seat is facing, to allow the user greater comfortability when seated.
Claim 27 – Allen, disclosed above, teaches the first seat frame part and the second seat frame part are provided to have the same shape (elements 11 and 12 in figure 1).
Allen does not teach the first leg rest frame and the second leg rest frame are provided to have the same shape.
Peter, disclosed above, teaches the first leg rest frame and the second leg rest frame are provided to have the same shape (element 153 in figure 4a and element 154 in figure 4e). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Allen to include headrests and leg rests, to make them the same shape. If both parts have the same shape, the time and cost to manufacture is greatly reduced.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US-3743350-A) in view of Peter (US-7726730-B2), further in view Krnja (DE-102019100670-A1).
Claim 17 – Allen and Peter, both disclosed above, do not teach a rear end of each of the pair of first support links is hinge-coupled to a corresponding one of the pair of first support brackets mounted at the rear part of a corresponding movable rail, and a front end of each of the pair of second support links is hinge-coupled to a corresponding one of the pair of second support brackets mounted at the front part of a corresponding movable rail.
Krnja discloses a seat that can be moved from a forward-facing position to a rearward facing position. Krnja teaches support brackets (element 38 in figures 3a-3d) hinge-coupled to the rest of the seat structure and attached to the movable rail (element 39 in figures 3a-3d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, when modifying Allen with the sliding rails of Peter to do so with the hinged brackets of Krnja in order to provide a more stable attachment of the linkages to the sliding rails.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US-3743350-A) in view of Peter (US-7726730-B2), further in view Matsuzawa (US-20200353845-A1).
Claim 25 – Allen and Peter, both disclosed above, do not teach that an angle of the first leg rest frame is adjustable by a first hinge shaft of the hinge bracket, and do not teach that the second leg rest frame is mounted on a second hinge shaft such that an angle of the second leg rest frame is adjustable.
Matsuzawa discloses a vehicle seat that can be set to face forward or rearward with a headrest and leg rest comprising parts identical to one another. Matsuzawa teaches that an angle of the first leg rest frame is adjustable by a first hinge shaft of the hinge bracket, and that the second leg rest frame is mounted on a second hinge shaft such that an angle of the second leg rest frame is adjustable. (Element 44 in figure 2 is the hinge bracket with which the headrest and leg rest frames are mounted, creating and adjustable functionality of the rests). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, when modifying Allen with the headrest and leg rest taught by Peter to mount them hingedly to provide the user with the ability to adjust the rests to their preference, providing the user with greater comfortability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18, 20-23, and 26 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:00 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636