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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (11279268) over Imai et al (5139311). The reference to Nishida teaches structure substantially as claimed including a seat assembly (1) of a vehicle, comprising: a seat cushion (10); a seat back (11) connected to and extending from the seat cushion (see at least fig 4); and an access opening disposed in one of the seat cushion or the seat back, the access opening (20) configured to allow for user access to a body child seat anchor feature (30) for installation of a child seat (100 at least fig 7), the body child seat anchor feature (30) secured to a vehicle body or seat frame, the access opening including a closure (70) operated by attractive magnetic forces (at least pgh 30 at 20), the closure is biased toward a closed position by the attractive magnetic forces, the only difference being that there is not a vehicle explicitly claimed and the opening does not include two opposing edges with the magnetic elements in the edges. However, the reference to Imai et al teaches the use of a magnetic closure with the magnetic elements enclosed in each of the two opposing trims(both are enclosed within the periphery of the trim as shown in at least fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Nishida with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a magnetic closure of two opposing edges, as taught by Imai et al since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The use of magnetic threading or wire is conventional structures. To use such known structures in the same intended manner would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. With regard to claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14 note at least figure 2 of Imai et al. Further , note the use of an automobile seat structure and the provision of a vehicle would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result and the method would have been obvious in view of the structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 JUL 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See remarks above in the rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights