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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 3, 10, 20 including a magnetic string or wire must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida (11279268). The reference to Nishida teaches structure 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.
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) 8, 13, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (11279268). The reference to Nishida teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above, the only difference being that there is not a vehicle explicitly claimed. However, the reference teaches 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. Further the method would have been obvious in view of the structures.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishida (11279268) over Imai et al (5139311). The reference to Nishida teaches structure substantially as claimed, as discussed above, including an access opening and magnetic closure, the only difference being that 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 embedded in two opposing edges. 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, 9, 11, 12, 14,19 note at least figure 2 of Imai et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant t’s including seat structures with access openings and closures.
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