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
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) 1-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harold J. Miller et al. U.S. Patent 5,366,268 A (Miller).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a system, comprising: a seat bottom (Element 6) having a seat bottom frame (Element 8) and a seatback (Element 2) having a seatback frame (Element 4) pivotably supported by the seat bottom frame; and a seat frame brace (Element 12) movable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration (Column 1 Line 60-Column 2 Line 3), the seat frame brace including: a back link (Element 14) having a first end portion and a second end portion (area along Element 14 of Element 18 and 20) coupled to the seatback frame; and an actuator (Element 50) coupled to the seat bottom frame and operative to move the first end portion in a seat rearward direction to position the seat frame brace in the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 18-24).
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses the system wherein the actuator is a linear actuator positioned to extend in the seat rearward direction when actuated (Column 2 Line 18-24).
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses the system wherein the linear actuator is retracted in the stowed configuration and extended in the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 18-24).
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses the system wherein the linear actuator is fixed to the seat bottom frame (Figure 1 Element 48 and 50 fixed on Element 8).
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses the system wherein the first end portion of the back link is pivotably and slidingly coupled to the linear actuator (Column 2 Line 18-24).
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses the system further comprising a latch operative to lock the back link and the actuator in position upon reaching the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 4-17).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Miller discloses the system wherein the actuator includes a channel fixed to the seat bottom frame; a bar slidably disposed in the channel and coupled to the first end portion; and a cylinder carried by the bar and positioned to extend the bar in the seat rearward direction when actuated; further comprising a latch positioned to extend into the channel to lock the bar and the back link in position upon reaching the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 4-24).
Regarding claim 14, Miller discloses the system wherein the first end portion is positioned seat rearward of a seatback pivot axis when the seat frame brace is in the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 4-17).
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) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harold J. Miller et al. U.S. Patent 5,366,268 A (Miller) in view of Brandon S. Marriott et al. U.S. Patent 8,123,293 B2 (Marriott).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 12, Miller discloses the system comprising a seatback frame (Element 4). Miller does not directly disclose a webbing guide on the seatback frame, Marriott discloses a seatback frame with a web guide (Figure 8 Element 72); wherein the seat frame brace is coupled to the seatback frame on a same side of the seatback frame as the webbing guide (Figure 4); further comprising a seatbelt assembly supported by the seatback frame.
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well know in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller as taught by Marriott to include Marriott’s web guide on the same side of the brace. Such a modification would provide a means to support a safety restraint element on the seat system.
Regarding claim 11, Miller in view of Marriott discloses the system further comprising a second seat frame brace coupled to an opposite side of the seatback frame as the webbing guide (Figure 4 Marriott as Element 104 brace, duplication of parts along seat frame structure as taught in Miller).
Regarding claim 13, Miller in view of Marriott discloses the system wherein an anchor of the seatbelt assembly is positioned along the seat frame (Figure 4 Element 76, Marriott). Miller in view of Marriott does not directly disclose the seatbelt assembly to be positioned between the seat bottom frame and the seat frame brace. Orientation modification is common and well known in the art. It would be obvious to provide the position of the seatbelt assembly in the best orientation along the seat frame with an alternative arrangement.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harold J. Miller et al. U.S. Patent 5,366,268 A (Miller) in view of Deepak Patel U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0208084 A1 (Patel).
Regarding claim 15, Miller discloses the system having the seat frame brace. Miller does not directly disclose a processor and a memory device. Patel discloses a system further comprising a processor and a memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to activate the actuator in response to certain vehicle impacts in order to move the seat frame brace to the deployed configuration and resist forward movement of the seatback relative to the seat bottom ([0035-0037).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art to modify Miller as taught by Patel to include Patel impact responsive system including the processor and memory integrated with the operational function of the seat frame movement.
Regarding claim 16, Miller in view of Patel discloses the system wherein the actuator includes a channel fixed to the seat bottom frame; a bar slidably disposed in the channel and coupled to the first end portion; and a cylinder carried by the bar and positioned to extend the bar in the seat rearward direction when actuated (Column 2 Line 4-24, Mliler).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Miller in view of Patel discloses the system further comprising a latch positioned to extend into the channel to lock the bar and the back link in position upon reaching the deployed configuration; further comprising a latch operative to lock the back link and the actuator in position upon reaching the deployed configuration (Column 2 Line 4-17, Miller).
Regarding claim 19, Miller in view of Patel discloses the system wherein the actuator is a pyrotechnic device (Element 44, Patel).
Regarding claim 20, Miller in view of Patel discloses the system wherein the first end portion of the back link is pivotably and slidingly coupled to the actuator (Column 2 Line 18-24, Miller).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636