DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/755,144 filed 6/26/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for containing implied language.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the following implied phrase should be deleted: “A vehicle seat structure and methods of use are provided.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
RE Claim 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 20: What is “mostly horizontal” and “mostly vertical”?
The term “mostly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mostly” 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.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8-12, 15-16, and 18-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMillen (US 7,559,594 B2)(hereinafter McMillen).
RE Claim 1: McMillen discloses a vehicle seat structure (approximated by 30; at least Figs 1-4), comprising:
a seat back assembly (34, 37) comprising:
a seat back frame (34); and
one or more seat back brackets (37), wherein the seat back frame is coupled to the one or more seat back brackets (col 6, ln 62 – end);
a seat mount assembly (36, Figs 1-4 and 10A-F) comprising:
one or more mounting brackets (36);
a lateral structural beam (not numbered, seen in Figs 10A-F),
wherein the one or more mounting brackets are:
coupled to left and right sides of the lateral structural beam (Figs 10A-F);
mounted to a floor of a vehicle (via 38; see Figs 1-4); and
pivotably attached to the one or more seat back brackets (37), forming a seat back pivot (col 6, ln 62 – end); and
one or more coupling ramps coupled to the one or more mounting brackets (Fig 10);
a seat cushion assembly (32) comprising:
a cushion frame (seat frame per col 12, ln 55-65); and
one or more cushion brackets (50), coupled to the cushion frame, pivotably attached to the one or more seat back brackets (as seen in Figs 1-4), forming a seat cushion pivot; and
one or more pivot latch mechanisms for the seat back pivot and the seat cushion pivot (col 6, ln 62 – end), wherein:
the seat cushion assembly:
is configured to be rotated down at the seat cushion pivot to a mostly horizontal condition (Fig 3); and
is supported by the one or more cushion brackets resting against the lateral structural beam, the seat back assembly is configured to be folded down at the seat back pivot to a mostly horizontal condition (Fig 3).
RE Claim 11: McMillen discloses a vehicle seat structure (approximated by 30; at least Figs 1-4), comprising:
a seat back assembly (37, 34) comprising one or more seat back brackets (37),
a seat mount assembly (36, Figs 1-4 and 10A-F) comprising:
one or more mounting brackets (36);
a lateral structural beam (not numbered, seen in Figs 10A-F),
wherein the one or more mounting brackets are:
coupled to left and right sides of the lateral structural beam (Figs 10A-F);
mounted to a floor of a vehicle (via 38; see Figs 1-4); and
pivotably attached to the one or more seat back brackets (37), forming a seat back pivot (col 6, ln 62 – end); and
one or more coupling ramps coupled to the one or more mounting brackets (Fig 10);
a seat cushion assembly (32) comprising one or more cushion brackets (50), coupled to the cushion frame, pivotably attached to the one or more seat back brackets (as seen in Figs 1-4), forming a seat cushion pivot; and
one or more pivot latch mechanisms for the seat back pivot and the seat cushion pivot (col 6, ln 62 – end), wherein:
the seat cushion assembly:
is configured to be rotated down at the seat cushion pivot to a mostly horizontal condition (Fig 3); and
is supported by the one or more cushion brackets resting against the lateral structural beam, the seat back assembly is configured to be folded down at the seat back pivot to a mostly horizontal condition (Fig 3).
RE Claims 2 and 12 : McMillen discloses the vehicle seat structure of claim 1 (and 11),
wherein the seat back assembly is configured to be folded down by deactivating one or more of the one or more pivot latch mechanisms (Fig 3, also col 9, ln 39-44).
RE Claims 5 and 15: McMillen discloses the vehicle seat structure of claim 1 (and 11),
wherein the seat cushion assembly further comprises a cushion component (32).
RE Claim 6: McMillen discloses the vehicle seat structure of claim 5,
wherein the cushion component is positioned within the cushion frame (seat frame per col 12, ln 55-65).
RE Claim 16: McMillen discloses the vehicle seat structure of claim 15, wherein:
the seat cushion assembly comprises a cushion frame, and the cushion component is positioned within the cushion frame (seat frame per col 12, ln 55-65).
RE Claims 8 and 18: McMillen discloses the vehicle structure of claim 1 (and 11),
wherein the seat cushion assembly is configured to be rotated up at the seat cushion pivot to a mostly vertical condition (Fig 2).
RE Claims 9 and 19: McMillen discloses the vehicle structure of claim 8 (and 18),
wherein the seat cushion assembly is configured to be supported by one or more of the one or more pivot latch mechanisms (col 9, ln 39-44).
RE Claims 10 and 20: McMillen discloses the vehicle structure of claim 8 (and 18),
wherein the seat back assembly is configured to be folded up at the seat back pivot to a mostly vertical condition (Fig 2).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Ito (US 2015/0291072 A1)(hereinafter Ito).
RE Claim 7 and 17: McMillen discloses the vehicle seat structure of claim 5 and 15 as previously discussed.
It appears McMillen teaches cushion springs (Figs 14). However, McMillen does not explicitly teach wherein the cushion component comprises one or more springs.
However, Ito teaches a vehicle seat (analogous art) comprising a cushion component (seat per para 0002, 0008). Ito further teaches the cushion component comprises one or more springs (para 0002, 0008, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McMillen in view of Ito such that the cushion component comprises one or more springs as taught by Ito for the advantages of providing comfort to an occupant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 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 and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of wherein folding down the seat back causes the cushion pivot to also rotate forward and dive down, causing the cushion bracket to drop from the lateral structural beam to the one or more coupling ramps (claims 3, 13) and wherein the cushion assembly is configured to be supported by the one or more cushion brackets resting on the one or more coupling ramps when the seat back is folded down at the seat back pivot to the mostly horizontal condition (claims 4, 14), along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various seat assemblies with pivot mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644