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 .
Application Status
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “correction device for forcing an occupant to a proper seating pressure…” in claims 23 and 33. corresponding structure for the compute platform is found on pages 15-16 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 21-22 of application No.15935416 (filed on 03/26/2018, now U.S. patent No. 10940772). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other The limitations of the claims of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the claim limitations of the related application in view of the secondary reference(s). The breadth of the instant application claims (e.g. claims 21-40) would read on the narrow claims of the related application. These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and/or the secondary reference(s) and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claims in the related application and are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application.
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.
Claims 21-30, 33, and 36 are 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.
In claim 21 lines 5-6, the recited limitation “the kinds of an electronic component” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear to the examiner what does having the kinds of an electric component mean?
In claim 23 line 2, the recited limitation “the group consisting of” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the claim recites a pressure. It is unclear to the examiner if this is a pressure sensor/device or what electric component can be a pressure?
In claim 29 line 2, the recited limitation “the two parts” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 33 lines 2-4, the recited limitation “the kinds of an electronic component” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear to the examiner what does having the kinds of an electric component mean? Further, the recited limitation “the group consisting of” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the claim recites a pressure. It is unclear to the examiner if this is a pressure sensor/device or what electric component can be a pressure?
In claim 36 line 2, the recited limitation “the two parts” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 22, 24-28, and 30 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-27, 29-34, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott (US 20090267376 A1) in view of Russel (US 20130332104 A1).
With respect to claim 21, a vehicle seat (see at least [abstract]), comprising: a frame member provided on a floor of a vehicle (see at least [0016-0017], [0019], [0022-0023] and [Fig. 1]); a seat part detachably attached to the frame member (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]); and a connector unit electrically or optically connecting the seat part to the frame member (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]), wherein the seat part is interchangeably selected from a number of selections having the kinds of an electric component (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]).
However, McDermot do not specifically disclose the seat part has a plurality of seat part segments, and the plurality of seat part segments has a central part and a pair of side parts.
Russel teaches the seat part has a plurality of seat part segments (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]), and the plurality of seat part segments has a central part and a pair of side parts (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the seat part has a plurality of seat part segments, and the plurality of seat part segments has a central part and a pair of side parts. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 22, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein the number of selections having different properties of a pad and a skin member of the seat part.
Russel teaches wherein the number of selections having different properties of a pad and a skin member of the seat part (see at least [0025] and [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the number of selections having different properties of a pad and a skin member of the seat part. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 23, McDermot discloses wherein the electric component is selected from the group consisting of a heater, a cooling fan, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure, an air bag, a switch, an actuator, and a correction device for forcing an occupant to a proper seating posture at a time of a vehicle crash (see at least [0022]).
With respect to claim 24, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein each seat part segments is provided with a pad and a skin member, at least one of the seat part segments is detachably connected to the frame member.
Russel teaches wherein each seat part segments is provided with a pad and a skin member (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]), at least one of the seat part segments is detachably connected to the frame member (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein each seat part segments is provided with a pad and a skin member, at least one of the seat part segments is detachably connected to the frame member. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 25, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein each seat part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member.
Russel teaches wherein each seat part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein each seat part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 26, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein the electric component is provided between the sub frame and the pad or between the pad and the skin member.
Russel teaches wherein the electric component is provided between the sub frame and the pad or between the pad and the skin member (see at least [0025-0032], [0061-0065] and [Fig. 11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the electric component is provided between the sub frame and the pad or between the pad and the skin member. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 27, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein the number of selections having different sizes and configurations of the seat part.
Russel teaches wherein the number of selections having different sizes and configurations of the seat par (see at least [0025-0032], [0061-0065] and [Fig. 11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the number of selections having different sizes and configurations of the seat part. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 29, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein each side part is detachably connected to the central part via a second connector unit which connects the two parts both mechanically and electrically.
Russel teaches wherein each side part is detachably connected to the central part via a second connector unit which connects the two parts both mechanically and electrically (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein each side part is detachably connected to the central part via a second connector unit which connects the two parts both mechanically and electrically. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 30, McDermot discloses wherein the connector unit is connected to at least one of the sub frames (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]).
With respect to claim 31, McDermot discloses a vehicle seat (see at least [abstract]), comprising: a frame member provided on a floor of a vehicle; a plurality of seat parts detachably attached to the frame member (see at least [0016-0017], [0019], [0022-0023] and [Fig. 1]); and a connector unit electrically or optically connecting the plurality of seat parts to the frame member (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]), wherein the plurality of seat parts includes a seat cushion and a seat back (see at least [0016] and [Fig. 1]), one of the plurality of seat cushion part segments is connected to the frame member, and one of the plurality of seat back part segments is connected to the frame member (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]).
McDermot do not specifically disclose the seat cushion has a plurality of seat cushion part segments with different functions from each other, the seat back has a plurality of seat back part segments with different functions from each other.
Russel teaches the seat cushion has a plurality of seat cushion part segments with different functions from each other (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]), the seat back has a plurality of seat back part segments with different functions from each other (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the seat cushion has a plurality of seat cushion part segments with different functions from each other, the seat back has a plurality of seat back part segments with different functions from each other. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 32, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of seat cushion part segments has a central cushion part and a pair of side cushion parts.
Russel teaches wherein the plurality of seat cushion part segments has a central cushion part and a pair of side cushion parts (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the plurality of seat cushion part segments has a central cushion part and a pair of side cushion parts. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 33, McDermot discloses wherein the seat cushion part is interchangeably selected from a number of selections having the kinds of electric component, and the electric component is selected from the group consisting of a heater, a cooling fan, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a pressure, an air bag, a switch, an actuator, and a correction device for forcing an occupant to a proper seating posture at a time of a vehicle crash .
With respect to claim 34, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein each seat cushion part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member.
Russel teaches wherein each seat cushion part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein each seat cushion part segments is provided with a sub frame, each sub frame is made of a plate member. This would be done to improve performance of seats and incr ease user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 36, McDermot do not specifically disclose wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash.
Russel teaches wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash (see at least [0022], [0051-0053], [0058-0059], [0069-0077], and [Figs. 7-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash. This would be done to improve performance of seats and increase user’s convenience (see Russel para 0003-0007).
With respect to claim 37, McDermot discloses wherein the connector unit is connected to at least one of the sub frames (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]).
With respect to claim 38, McDermot discloses wherein the correction device includes an air cylinder for moving a corresponding part of the seat part (see at least [0022]).
With respect to claim 39, McDermot discloses wherein the connector unit mechanically connects the seat part to the frame member (see at least [0022-0023], [0025-0027], and [Figs. 2-5]).
With respect to claim 40, McDermot discloses wherein the frame member includes a lower frame part extending in a fore and aft direction, and an upper frame part extending upward from a rear end of the lower frame part (see at least [0016] and [Fig. 1]).
Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott (US 20090 267376 A1) in view of Russel (US 20130332104 A1) Hadi et al (US 20050168046 A1).
With respect to claim 28, McDermot as modified by Russel do not specifically teach wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash.
Hadi teaches wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash (see at least [0030-0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot as modified by Russel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hadi wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash. This would be done to improve cushioning or dampening fore and aft movement of the seat system (see Hadi para 0005)
With respect to claim 35, McDermot as modified by Russel wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash.
Hadi teaches wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash (see at least [0030-0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McDermot as modified by Russel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hadi wherein the frame member is provided with an air bag device, the air bag device includes a folded air bag and an inflator for inflating the air bag at a time of a crash. This would be done to improve cushioning or dampening fore and aft movement of the seat system (see Hadi para 0005).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667