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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazda (JP 2009-083701; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Mazda discloses a vehicle equipped with a floor, a first seat 12 disposed on the floor (Fig. 3), and a second seat 13 disposed behind the first seat, comprised of a concave portion (Fig. 3 at numeral 1) which is formed in the floor to include at least a region located behind the first seat and to place feet of a seated occupant sitting on the second seat (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, the concave portion has a triangular cross section (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Mazda further includes a pair of slide rails 12h, 12f which are attached so that the first seat 12 is slidable on the floor, wherein the concave portion is formed at a position behind rear ends of the pair of slide rails (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Mazda further includes a pair of slide rails 12h, 12f which are attached so that the first seat 12 is slidable on the floor, wherein the concave portion is formed between the pair of slide rails to include a region located in front of rear ends of the pair of slide rails (see Fig. 3; concave region extends between the rails and to the rear).
Regarding Claim 5, the concave portion of Mazda further includes a region between the rails 12h which extends from the front of the rails to the rear (see Figs. 2 and 3 for region between rials 12h).
Regarding Claim 6, Mazda includes a beam member 8 that extends in a right to left direction of the vehicle below the floor and supports the floor (Fig. 1), wherein the concave portion is formed at a position avoiding the beam member.
Regarding Claim 7, Mazda includes a beam member 7 that extends in a right to left direction of the vehicle on the floor and supports the floor (Fig. 1), wherein the concave portion is formed at a position avoiding the beam member.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsubishi (JP 2009-083601; applicant cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses a vehicle equipped with a floor, a first seat disposed on the floor (Fig. 1), and a second seat disposed behind the first seat (Fig. 1), comprised of a concave portion (Fig. 4 at numeral 70a) which is formed in the floor to include at least a region located behind the first seat and to place feet of a seated occupant sitting on the second seat.
Regarding Claim 8, the floor has an opening portion (Figs. 6 and 7) formed in a region located below the first seat, wherein the floor has a lid portion 330 (Fig. 6) that closes the opening portion, and wherein the concave portion is formed at a position avoiding the lid portion.
Regarding Claim 9, a battery which is disposed below the floor (in battery case 50); and a member that is disposed on the battery between the floor and the battery (top of the battery case 50), wherein the concave portion is formed at a position avoiding a member disposed on the battery.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazda as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Ikeda Bussan (JP 2000-333774; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 10, it is unclear if Mazda includes a foot cover portion. Ikeda discloses a seat assembly for a vehicle, including a foot cover 11, 13 (Fig. 2) at each of rear ends of the pair of slide rails of the first seat, and wherein the foot cover has an inclined surface inclined downward as it goes toward the rear of the vehicle. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the foot cover of Ikeda on the seat rails of Mazda in order to prevent the passenger’s foot from contacting the rails and possibly pinching or injuring the passengers’ feet.
Regarding Claim 11, the foot cover of Ikeda 11, 13 is integrally formed across the rear ends of the pair of slide rails (Fig. 2), and wherein the inclined surface of the foot cover extends to the concave portion formed in the floor as set out by Mazda.
Regarding Claim 12, Ikeda discloses that the seat 51 includes a seat cushion on which an occupant sits and an entry suppressing portion 9a (Fig. 8) which is disposed between a region on a rear end side of the seat cushion and the floor and suppresses a foreign object from behind the first seat from entering between the seat cushion and the floor.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yazaki (JP 2012-224114; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 13, it is unclear if Mazda discloses the use of a seat sensor. Yazaki discloses the first seat is a conveyance seat equipped with a seat cushion 1a on which an occupant sits, wherein the seat cushion includes a plate-shaped pressure receiving member 1c (seat pan) that receives a load of the occupant and a harness member 31 that is fixed to the pressure receiving member, and wherein at least a part of the harness member is disposed in a center region in a right to left direction on a rear end side of the pressure receiving member (Fig. 2). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the harness re-location device of Yazaki on the seat of Mazda in order to prevent pinching or kinking of the wiring harness so to extend the life and function of the seat.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aisin Seiki (JP 2013-107535; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 14, It is unclear if Mazda discloses an electric seat system. Aisin discloses a seat system for a vehicle, wherein the seat 1 is an electric conveyance seat including a seat body attached at a predetermined height position from the conveyance floor (Fig. 2) and forming a space between the seat body and the floor, a drive mechanism 13 driving the seat body to move, and control means 14 (ECU) controlling the drive mechanism, and wherein the control means acquires a detection signal of an entry object entering the space and controls the drive mechanism so that the seat body is separated from the entry object based on the detection signal (via sensor 17 detecting a pinch situation). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the pinch detection system of Aisin on the seat of Mazda to prevent any pinching or injury to the feet of the passenger when the seat was moved. The motivation is provided by Aisin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to seating systems and floor for vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights