DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 6/4/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 11-17 and 19-22 are pending.
Claims 11-17 and 19-22 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) 11, 12, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brose (DE 202004004251) in view of Guo et al. (US 11904746) (“Guo”). Brose teaches a headrest for a motor vehicle seat system, comprising: a main body (fig. 8: 2) which is covered at least in certain regions by an upholstery (paragraph 0021 discusses element 2 is a cushion/upholstery support) and is at least predominantly made from a plastics material (paragraph 0010), wherein the main body comprises a rib structure having a plurality of ribs (fig. 8 shows the plurality of internal ribs), which plurality of ribs partition off respective rib chambers aligned in a vehicle longitudinal direction from one another (there are ribs horizontally aligned to partition along a longitudinal direction). Brose does not teach a direction of longitudinal extent of at least one of the ribs runs obliquely to a direction of longitudinal extent of another one of the ribs. However, Guo teaches a thermoplastic element of seat frame including a reinforcing rib structure having ribs extending obliquely to vertical and horizontal ribs (fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide additional obliquely extending ribs within the rib structure of Brose in order to provide additional stability to the headrest.
As concerns claim 12, Brose, as modified, teaches a holding element (fig. 7: 4) for holding the headrest on a seat part, formed separately from the headrest, of the seat system.
As concerns claim 14, Brose, as modified, teaches wherein the holding element is received in a receiving region of the main body (as shown in fig. 7), and a mounting direction for receiving the holding element in the receiving region runs in the vehicle longitudinal direction (the bracket 4 is received horizontally/longitudinally through holes in the vertical ribbing).
As concerns claim 15, Brose, as modified, teaches wherein the main body is free of metal (one piece main body 2 shown in fig. 8 does not comprise metal).
As concerns claim 16, Brose, as modified, teaches wherein the headrest has a support surface configured to support a person's head (front surface of support 2), and (i) the rib chambers are closed on a side facing the support surface by a wall of the main body (as shown in fig. 1), and/or (ii) the rib chambers are at least partially open on a side facing away from the support surface.
As concerns claim 17, Brose, as modified, teaches wherein a direction of longitudinal extent of at least one of the ribs runs in a transverse direction of the headrest (as shown in fig. 8 and discussed in claim 1).
As concerns claim 20, Brose, as modified, teaches a motor vehicle seat comprising the headrest of claim 11 (paragraph 0001).
As concerns claim 21, Brose, as modified, teaches wherein a direction of longitudinal extent of four of the ribs runs obliquely to the direction of longitudinal extent of another one of the ribs such that the four ribs intersect the another one of the ribs at a common intersection point (as shown in the annotated fig. 2a from Guo, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brose, as modified, in view of Blosh (DE 102015011129). Brose, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein the headrest held on the seat part via the holding element is reversibly detachable from the seat part. However, Blosh teaches a similar headrest wherein the holding element is reversibly attached to the seat part (fig. 1a: via headrest rod support 42), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to reversibly detach the headrest rods from the seat part in order to allow storage of the headrest when not in use.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brose, as modified, in view of Albert (US 10336231). Brose, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein the main body is at least partially covered in foam. However, Albert teaches a headrest having a foam cushion/upholstery covering the headrest support (Col. 2, lines 60, 61). 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 cushion of Brose to be made of foam in order to provide the desired comfort to the occupant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applies the Guo reference in combination with Brose in order to address the obliquely extending ribs, as necessitated by amendment.
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 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
Prosecution Insights