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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and S-I in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirose (JP 2019/182369 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses a conveyance seat, comprising:
a frame member (back frame F2, figs. 2 & 3); and
a skin material that covers the frame member (back skin U2 cover back frame F2, fig. 1a),
wherein the skin material includes a first engaging portion (second engagement portion 75, figs. 1-5) and a second engaging portion (first engagement member 74, figs. 3-5) that engage with the frame member (as shown in figs. 1-5, the second and first engagement portions 75 and 74 engage with the back frame F2 via the second skin end portion 73),
the first engaging portion is provided at one end portion of the skin material (p. 5, para. 6, lines 4-8, “the hook portions 74A and 75A are arranged side by side in the left-right direction along the skin attachment portion 271 extending in the left-right direction. Further, of the hook portions 74A and 75A of the back skin U2, the hook portions 75A that are arranged on the outermost side in the left-right direction and engage with the left and right end portions of the skin attachment portion 271 are all the same skin end portion”; as shown in figs. 4-8),
the second engaging portion is provided at the other end portion located on the side opposite to the one end portion (see p. 5, para. 6, lines 4-8 above; figs. 4-8),
the frame member includes an engaged portion (back frame F2 includes attachment wire 27, figs. 1-5) with which the first engaging portion and the second engaging portion of the skin material engage (as shown in figs. 1-5, the second engagement portion 75 and the first engagement portion 74 of the back skin U2 engage), and
the first engaging portion and the second engaging portion engage with the same engaged portion (as shown in fig. 4, the second engagement portion 75 and the first engagement portion 74 engage with the same attachment wire 27).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiozu (JP 2016/087195 A).
Regarding claim 2, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the engaged portion is a hole portion formed in a rectangular shape in the frame member, the first engaging portion engages with one side of the hole portion, and the second engaging portion engages with the other side facing the one side.
However, Shiozu is in the field of a vehicle seat (Abstract) and teaches wherein the engaged portion is a hole portion formed in a rectangular shape in the frame member (holes 51A and 51B; as shown in figs. 5-22), the first engaging portion engages with one side of the hole portion, and the second engaging portion engages with the other side facing the one side (as shown in figs. 5-10, hooking parts 41A and 41B engage with holes 51A and 51B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that the engaged portion is a hole as taught by Shiozu, in order to provide a stable, predictable connection, and allow for a smooth engagement between the first and second engaging portions.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP 2018/001988 A).
Regarding claim 3, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first engaging portion is provided with a first extending portion that is formed such that a length of the first extending portion in a seat width direction decreases as the first extending portion extends toward a tip of the first engaging portion, and the second engaging portion is provided with a second extending portion that is formed such that a length of the second extending portion in the seat width direction decreases as the second extending portion extends toward a tip of the second engaging portion.
However, Hayashi is in the field of a vehicle seat (Abstract) and teaches an engaging portion (hook surface 24B2, figs. 5-8) provided with an extending portion (planar body 24B1, figs. 5-8) that is formed such that a length of the first extending portion in a seat width direction decreases as the first extending portion extends toward a tip of the first engaging portion (as shown in figs. 6 & 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second engaging portion of Hirose such that there was an extension part provided to the first and second engaging portions as taught by Hayashi, in order to provide adjustability.
Regarding claim 4, Hirose in view of Hayashi discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a length of a rear end of the second extending portion in the seat width direction is shorter than a length of a rear end of the first extending portion in the seat width direction.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the different portions of the extending portion of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in order to provide easier attachment means. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 5, Hirose in view of Hayashi discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a length of the first extending portion in a direction perpendicular to the seat width direction is longer than a length of the second extending portion in the direction perpendicular to the seat width direction.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the different portions of the extending portion of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in order to provide easier attachment means. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuma et al. (US 2018/0272907 A1), hereinafter Okuma.
Regarding claim 6, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose and further discloses wherein a step portion is formed in the frame member, and the engaged portion is disposed in the vicinity of the step portion.
However, Okuma is in the field of a reinforcement structure for a seat back frame (Abstract) and teaches wherein a step portion (sections 20A, 20E; as shown in fig. 6) is formed in the frame member (as shown in fig. 6, sections 20A and 20E are formed in the frame member 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that there was a step portion formed in the frame member as taught by Okuma, in order to help maintain the backrest’s shape and stability. Therefore, modifying the step portion of Okuma to be formed in the frame member of Hirose would result in the engaged portion being disposed in the vicinity of the step portion.
Regarding claim 7, Hirose in view of Okuma discloses the invention in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a bead is formed in the vicinity of the step portion.
However, Okuma is in the field of a reinforcement structure for a seat back frame (Abstract) and teaches wherein a bead is formed in the vicinity of the step portion (as shown in figs. 4 & 6, the third beads 23 and the fourth bead 24 are form in the vicinity of the sections 20A and 20E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that there was a bead formed in the vicinity of the step portion as taught by Okuma, such that deformation of the panel member is less likely to occur (Okuma: Para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the frame member includes a fixing portion for fixing the conveyance seat to a conveyance.
However, Okuma is in the field of a reinforcement structure for a seat back frame (Abstract) and teaches wherein the frame member (seat back frame 10, fig. 4) includes a fixing portion (plurality of holes 213, 214; as shown in fig. 3) for fixing the conveyance seat to a conveyance (Para. [0040], “[i]n addition, holes corresponding to holes 214 are respectively defined in the reinforcing panels 28 and 29 and projection nuts (not shown) for attaching the seat back frame 10 to the vehicle body are joined to positions corresponding to the holes by projection junction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that the frame member includes a fixing portion as taught by Okuma, in order to fix the conveyance seat to a conveyance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that the engaged portion was disposed at a position overlapping the fixing portion in a direction perpendicular to a seat width direction, in order to provide structural stability.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirano (JP 2018/131074 A).
Regarding claim 9, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the frame member includes a tether anchor for fixing a child seat.
However, Hirano is in the field of a vehicle seat (Abstract) and teaches wherein the frame member includes a tether anchor (tether anchor 16A, fig. 1) for fixing a child seat (p. 2, para. 5, lines 3-4, “[a] tether hook 19A provided at the tip of a tether belt 19 for fixing a child seat (not shown) is attached to the tether anchor 16A”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that the frame member includes a tether anchor as taught by Hirano, in order to add extra stability and safety. As a result of the above modification, modifying the frame member of Hirose to include the tether anchor as taught by Hirano, would result in the engaged portion of Hirose to be disposed at a position overlapping the tether anchor in a seat width direction.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (JP 2012/240625 A).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the skin material is provided with a linear fastener that couples side portions of the skin material after the frame member is covered with the skin material, and a terminal portion of the linear fastener is covered by a hiding portion.
However, Yasuda is in the field of a vehicle seat (Abstract) and teaches wherein the skin material is provided with a linear fastener (slider 113, figs. 1-3) that couples side portions of the skin material after the frame member is covered with the skin material (first element 11 and second element 21; as shown in figs. 1-4), and a terminal portion of the linear fastener is covered by a hiding portion (p. 5, para. 1, lines 2-3, “it shows in Figure 4, as for terminal side coating section 13, it is the size which can cover the slider 113 which was moved to this terminal position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirose such that the skin material was provided with a linear fastener and a corresponding hiding portion as taught by Yasuda, in order to secure the side portions of the skin material together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights