DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/766,975 filed 7/9/2024 which claims priority to JP 2023-114316 7/12/2023.
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 § 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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the following: “the pair of deflection restricting portions planarly support the seat cushion pad from a pad back side at an angle of facing obliquely inward…” The sentence is incomplete and thus, the angle/relationship is unclear.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 6,412,874 B1)(hereinafter Mayer) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 8,662,483 B2)(hereinafter Yamaguchi).
RE Claim 1: Mayer discloses a cushion spring configured to receive a load of a seated occupant by a surface of the cushion spring, the cushion spring comprising:
a pair of formed wires (springs 26) configured to be bridged to a seat cushion frame in a seat front-rear direction and are arranged side by side in a seat width direction (Fig 2); and
a member (14) that is joined to the pair of formed wires (26), wherein
the pair of formed wires each have a center wire and a side wire that are arranged side by side in the seat width direction and extending in the seat front-rear direction (Fig 2)(also col 2, ln 55-end),
the center wire and the side wire are arranged in an order from a center of the seat cushion frame to an outer side in the seat width direction (Fig 2)(also col 2, ln 55-end), and
the member (14) includes a rear connecting portion (portion near attachment to back seat) and a pair of deflection restricting portions (portion on the right hand side + portion on the left hand side), the rear connecting portion extending to connect between the side wire and the center wire and between the center wires in the seat width direction in a region on a seat rear side of an ischium supporting portion of the pair of formed wires that supports an ischium of the seated occupant via a seat cushion pad (Fig 2, col 2, ln 55- end and also col 3, ln 1-5), the pair of deflection restricting portions extending from the rear connecting portion in the seat front-rear direction to connect all crank-shaped portions that are formed in the side wires and bent to repeatedly folding in the seat width direction (Fig 2).
RE the member is a “resin” member. Mayer teaches the member 14 is made of synthetic material by conventional molding per col 3, ln 1-5 but does not explicitly teach resin.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a cushion spring configured to receive a load of a seated occupant by a surface (analogous art) and further teaches a resin member (pad 21 formed of resin per col 2 ln 40-50).
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 Mayer in view of Yamaguchi such that the member is resin as taught by Yamaguchi for the advantages of improving comfortability for the seated occupant (Mayer col 3, ln -5)(also Yamaguchi col 3, ln 40-50).
RE Claim 3: Mayer as modified discloses the cushion spring according to claim 1 as previously discussed, and wherein
wherein the pair of deflection restricting portions (portion of 36 on right side + portion of 36 on left side) connect all the crank-shaped portions (26 on right side + 26 on left side) formed in each side wire in the seat front-rear direction over an entire region in the seat width direction (Fig 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
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 the pair of deflection restricting portions include an external projecting portion that projects outward beyond a most external projecting portion of each side wire in the seat width direction and planarly support the seat cushion pad from a pad back side (claim 4);
wherein an inner edge of the pair of deflection restricting portions in the seat width direction is thinner than an outer edge of the pair of deflection restricting portions (claim 5);
wherein the rear connecting portion includes a central connecting portion that connects between the center wires and between a pair of side connecting portions each of which connects the side wire and the center wire, and the central connecting portion and the pair of side connecting portions planarly support the seat cushion pad from a pad back side at an angle of facing obliquely forward at a position higher than the center wires and the side wires connected by the central connecting portion and the pair of side connecting portions (claim 6); and
wherein the rear connecting portion includes a recessed clamp portion that is recessed from a seat front side toward a seat back side to clamp an object from the seat back side, and a rib that projects in a recess of the clamp portion to form an upper surface flush with the rear connecting portion (claim 7), 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 vehicle cushion and supports with wires and resin members designed to support the ischium of an individual.
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