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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
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) 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200474330 (“KR ‘330”) in view of Epaud (US 2006/0267390). KR ‘330 teaches a vehicle seat comprising: a fixed frame disposed in a vehicle body (fig. 4a: 30); a rotating link (fig. 4a: 32) connected to the fixed frame through a rotation shaft (fig. 4a: 16), the rotating link being configured to rotate relative to the rotation shaft; a seat cushion frame (fig. 4a: 10) having one side of a rear end portion hinge-connected to the rotating link at a first connection point (fig. 4a: 15) to rotate the rotating link when the seat cushion frame rotates; and a seat back frame (fig. 4a: 20) being hinge-connected to the fixed frame at a second connection point (fig. 4a: 25) and another side of the lower end portion hinge-connected to another side of the rear end portion of the seat cushion frame at a third connection point (fig. 4a: 14) to rotate relative to the fixed frame when the seat cushion frame is rotated.
KR ’330 does not teach wherein the seat back frame is hinge-connected to the fixed frame at a “lower end” of the seat back frame. However, Epaud teaches a similar foldable vehicle seat having the seat back frame hinge-connected to the fixed frame at a lower end of the seat back frame (fig. 1: at connection 19/axis A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the location of the rotation connection between the seat back and fixed frame to be lower or to modify the shape of the fixed frame itself to be vertically shorted in order to provide the desired amount of reclining of the seat back or to better fit within a vehicle, respectively.
As concerns claim 2, KR ‘330, as modified, teaches wherein the rotation shaft of the fixed frame is disposed at a front portion of the fixed frame, and an upper portion of the fixed frame is hinge-connected to the seat back frame (as discussed with the combination of Epaud with respect to claim 1).
As concerns claim 5, KR ‘330, as modified, teaches wherein the seat cushion frame has a lower portion of the rear end portion hinge-connected to the rotating link and an upper portion of the rear end portion hinge-connected to the seat back frame (as shown in fig. 4b).
As concerns claim 8, KR ‘330, as modified, teaches wherein an elastic mechanism (KR’ 330: fig. 3: 24; Epaud, fig. 1: recliner 19 includes a spring) is disposed between the fixed frame and the seat back frame, wherein the elastic mechanism is configured to apply a rotational force in a direction in which the seat back frame is erected upright.
As concerns claim 9, KR ‘330, as modified, teaches wherein the elastic mechanism connects a first point of the fixed frame and a second point of the seat back frame, the elastic mechanism being configured to apply an elastic force in a direction in which the first point and the second point are brought closer together (the springs are torsional springs connected to the fixed frame and seat back frame in order to provide a biasing force toward the upright position by moving a particular point on the seat back closer to a particular point on the fixed frame).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of KR ‘330 and Epaud fail to teach:
wherein the rotation shaft of the fixed frame is disposed at a front portion of the fixed frame, and an upper portion of the fixed frame is hinge-connected to the seat back frame;
wherein an elastic mechanism is disposed between the fixed frame and the rotating link, wherein the elastic mechanism is configured to apply a rotational force to the rotating link in a direction in which the seat cushion frame is erected upright; or
wherein the seat back frame is configured to be upright to form a default position of the vehicle seat when the seat cushion frame is lowered forward, the seat back frame is configured to rotate to a diagonal position between rearward and upward directions to form a relax position when the seat cushion frame is rotated to another diagonal position between a forward direction and the upward direction, and the seat back frame is configured to be erected upright to form a stow position when the seat cushion frame is pulled upright.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636