DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 5/21/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 6-10, 14-15 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. (US 6929324) (“Enomoto”). Enomoto discloses a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame; and wherein the rigid support structure is configured to not flex in response to the user sitting the seat assembly (as discussed in Col. 3 and shown in figs. 4 and 5).
As concerns claim 3, Enomoto discloses wherein the suspension comprises a plurality of springs (fig. 2: 21).
As concerns claims 4 and 18, wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along opposing sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure (as shown in fig. 2).
As concerns claim 16, Enomoto discloses a vehicle comprising: a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame, and wherein the rigid support structure is configured to not flex in response to the user sitting the seat assembly (as discussed in Col. 3 and shown in figs. 4 and 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Prince et al. (US 6908159) (“Prince”). As concerns claims 2 and 17, Enomoto does not teach wherein the rigid seat support structure comprises an ergonomic shape. However, Prince teaches an ergonomic panel configured to contour to the user (fig. 46: 21), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rigid support structure of Enomoto to be an ergonomic panel in order to provide additional comfort to the user.
As concerns claim 11, Enomoto teaches a seat assembly comprising: a frame (figs. 1, 2: 14 and outer portion of 15); a seat bottom connected to the frame, the seat bottom comprising a rigid support structure (fig. 2: 16; Col. 3, lines 49-53: the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency) and a suspension (fig. 2: springs 21) extending between the frame and a periphery region of the rigid support structures; wherein, responsive to a user sitting at the seat assembly, the suspension flexes between the rigid support structure and the frame to accommodate movement of the rigid support structure relative to the frame, and wherein, responsive to the user sitting at the seat assembly, the rigid support structure does not flex (as discussed in Col. 3 and shown in figs. 4, 5).
Enomoto does not teach wherein the rigid seat support structure comprises an ergonomic shape. However, Prince teaches an ergonomic panel configured to contour to the user (fig. 46: 21), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rigid support structure of Enomoto to be an ergonomic panel in order to provide additional comfort to the user.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Colsanti et al. (US 5076643) (“Colsanti”). Enomoto does not teach wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along four sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure. However, Colsanti teaches a similar rigid panel support for a seatback having springs extending from all four sides of the periphery (fig. 1: 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide springs from an additional side of the support structure of Enomoto in order to provide the desired amount of flex/support to the seat.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Prince and further in view of Colsanti. Enomoto, as modified, does not teach wherein springs of the plurality of springs extend between the frame and the rigid support structure along four sides of the periphery region of the rigid support structure. However, Colsanti teaches a similar rigid panel support for a seatback having springs extending from all four sides of the periphery (fig. 1: 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide springs from an additional side of the support structure of Enomoto in order to provide the desired amount of flex/support to the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that element 16 of Enomoto does not disclose a “rigid support structure” because Enomoto’s stating that the “the straight wires are rigid and may be made wavy to provide resiliency” describes the condition of the wires before they are formed, not the final configuration of the planar wire mesh 16. The Office disagrees. Figs. 2, 4 and 5 clearly show that the straight wire frame 16 moves in a rigid, not flexing fashion when a seating force is applied, which is consistent with the statement Enomoto’s statement that “[t]he planar wire mesh 16 may also include wavy lateral wires to provide a resiliency by itself.” As such, the straight wires shown in the drawings are rigid so as not to provide any resiliency and they made be modified to be wavy in order to provide resiliency in the wire frame itself. Applicant’s statement that this somehow describes preformed condition of the wires is without basis or reasonable interpretation of the language of the specification. The embodiment shown in the figures is therefore a rigid support element which is supported by the suspension mechanism and does not flex in response to a seated user, in similar fashion the present invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights