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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad et al. in view of Malerba (7,334,839).
Regarding claim 1, Kondrad et al. disclose a seat for a vehicle 100 comprising: a passenger seat 332; an independent seat 336 positioned behind the passenger seat and operated independently from rear seats 152; and a sliding rail 324, disposed on a vehicle floor in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, wherein each of the passenger seat and the independent seat is coupled to the sliding rail, so as to independently slide on the sliding rail.
However, Kondrad et al. fail to disclose the controller is configured to control at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat to slide or to inquire whether to slide the at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat based on at least one of the following factors: weight detected from the passenger seat or the independent seat; or crying sound of an infant or child detected in the vehicle.
Instead, Malebra discloses the controller (col. 6, lines 4-13) is configured to control at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat to slide or to inquire whether to slide the at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat based on at least one of the following factors: weight detected 201 from the passenger seat or the independent seat; or crying sound of an infant or child detected in the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Malebra and use a the movement system with controller and weight sensor to move the seats in the invention of Kondrad et al. because it is simple, and requires less user’s energy to move the seat.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad et al. in view of Malebra, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kayumi et al. (US 2007/0013218).
Regarding claim 2, Kayumi et al. disclose a switch 131 configured to slide at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat; and a controller 36 configured to control at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat to slide or to inquire whether to slide the at least one of the passenger seat or the independent seat based on operations of the switch (para 0104-0106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kayumi et al. and use a switch with the controller to move the seats in the invention of Kondrad et al. because it allows quicker access during emergency situation.
Regarding claim 3, Kondrad et al. disclose the controller slides the passenger seat and the independent seat to a rear in response to detecting a presence of the infant or child in the passenger seat (see figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 5, Kondrad et al. distinctly fails to disclose the controller slides the passenger seat and the independent seat to the front in response to detecting a presence of the infant or child in the independent seat.
However, Kondrad et al. disclose the front seat slide rear during child care arrangement. Furthermore, Kondrad et al. disclose front and second seat subassemblies are capable of moving to the front depending on other arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching and allow the seats to move forward during child care arrangement in Kondrad et al. because it is simple and efficient.
Regarding claim 6, Kondrad et al. disclose the passenger seat 332 and the independent seat 336 are positioned at a certain distance apart.
Regarding claim 8, Kondrad et al. disclose an AVN (Audio, Video, Navigation) system, wherein the controller inquires whether to slide the passenger seat or the independent seat through the AVN system in response to detecting a presence of the infant or child in the passenger seat or the independent seat (col. 17, lines 40-50 discloses words that can activate the controller).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad et al. in view of Malebra and Kayumi et al., as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2010/0171515).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa et al. disclose the controller 25 turns off a passenger airbag 29 (para 0033) or inquires whether to turn off the passenger airbag in response to detecting a presence of the infant or child in the passenger seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nakagawa et al. and place an airbag control system in the invention of Kondrad et al. in order to prevent any injuries.
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa et al. disclose the controller 25 turns on a curtain airbag or inquires (step 25a determines the detection and whether to turn the airbag ON or OFF) whether to turn on the curtain airbag in response to detecting a presence of the infant or child in the passenger seat or the independent seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nakagawa et al. and place an airbag control system in the invention of Kondrad et al. in order to prevent any injuries.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights