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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (10,259,360).
Regarding claim 1, Sato et al. disclose a driver's seat heater installed at a seat cushion S1 of an automobile driver's seat that includes a main section S11 for supporting buttocks and thighs of an occupant, and left and right side bolster sections S12 that are provided at seat left-right direction both sides of the main section and that jut out in a seat upward direction further than the main section, the driver's seat heater comprising: a main heater 11 installed at the main section; and a side heater 21 installed only at the side bolster section on a right side, of the left and right side bolster sections.
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 Sato et al.
Regarding claim 2, Sato et al. disclose the main heater 11 and the side heater 21 are configured by separate heater wires.
Sato et al. fail to disclose the side heater is switched OFF when self-driving is enabled in an automobile installed with the automobile driver's seat and the automobile is traveling in a self-driving mode.
However, Sato et al. disclose a control unit 100 that is capable of turning off only the side heaters 21 when a certain function has been identified. It would be obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to use self-driving as the function that switches off the side heaters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Sato et al. and use self-driving function in order to turn off the side heaters in order to save power and cost.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Nii et al. (9,744,890).
Regarding claim 3, Nii et al. disclose the main heater includes: a left-side heater 52 installed at a left-side portion of the main section, and a right-side heater 51 installed at a right-side portion of the main section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nii et al. and use left and right-side main heaters in the invention of Sato et al. in order to reduce material and cost.
Sato et al. as modified with Nii et al. fail to disclose right-side heater is disposed further toward an outer side in a seat left-right direction than the left-side heater.
However, Nii et al. disclose any modification is apparent without departing from the scope of the invention and does not preclude from placing the right side heater further out that left side heater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to place the right side seater further out than the left side heater in order provide maximum comfort, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Nii et al. disclose an automobile driver's seat comprising: a cushion pad 4P configuring a cushion member of a seat cushion; a cushion cover 4S covering the cushion pad; and the driver's seat heater 31 of claim 1 installed between the cushion pad and the cushion cover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nii et al. and place the seat heater between cushion and cover of the invention of Sato et al. because it is efficient and simple to install.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights