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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 (figures 1-14) in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 required a correction by the examiner to be considered. The document number “JPS5790234 A” is incorrect, and should be “JP2017094870 A” as indicated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character is not mentioned in the description: 36A in figure 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to because:
The support plate is reference character 35 when not modified and reference character 35A when modified. Figures 13 and 14 appear to be a modified version, but have the support plate labeled as reference character 35;
The engagement portion is reference character 44 when not modified and reference character 44A when modified. Figures 13 and 14 appear to be a modified version, but have the engagement portion labeled as reference character 44.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0068], in line 4 on page 28, the modified example is explained but element 44 is directed to the engagement portion of the nonmodified example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “receives” should be written as “receive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
In lines 5-6, “a support surface that supports the seated occupant” is unclear because earlier in the claim, it is stated that a support member supports the seated occupant. It is unclear if the support surface is part of, or potentially the upper surface of, the support member.
In line 7, “separating” is unclear terminology. It is unclear what a “separating direction” is.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
In lines 3-4, “separating” is unclear terminology. It is unclear what a “separating direction” is.
Regarding claim 4:
It is unclear what object has the parallel frames located at its end portions when the limitation states “both end portions” in line 2 as well as line 3. In lines 4 and 5, the end portions are directed to the parallel frames. If the end portions discussed earlier in the claim are directed to the end portions of the parallel frames, it is unclear how the parallel frames could be located at their own end portions.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 4.
Regarding claim 8:
In line 2, it is unclear how the support plate could be attached to something but also separated from it in the limitation “attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9:
In line 2, it is unclear how the support plate could be attached to something but also separated from it in the limitation “attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame”.
Regarding claim 10:
In line 4, it is unclear which object “is a molded body made of a second resin material”. It is advised that between the words “that” and “is” should be the object which is referred to as being a molded body made of a second resin material.
Regarding claim 11:
In line 5, “separating” is unclear terminology. It is unclear what a “separating direction” is.
In line 6, and again in lines 10-11, “a support surface that supports the seated occupant” is unclear because earlier in the claim, it is stated that a support member supports the seated occupant. It is unclear if the support surface is part of, or potentially the upper surface of, the support member.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12:
In lines 3-4, “separating” is unclear terminology. It is unclear what a “separating direction” is.
Regarding claim 14:
It is unclear what object has the parallel frames located at its end portions when the limitation states “both end portions” in line 2 as well as line 3. In lines 4 and 5, the end portions are directed to the parallel frames. If the end portions discussed earlier in the claim are directed to the end portions of the parallel frames, it is unclear how the parallel frames could be located at their own end portions.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18:
In line 2, it is unclear how the support plate could be attached to something but also separated from it in the limitation “attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19:
In line 2, it is unclear how the support plate could be attached to something but also separated from it in the limitation “attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame”.
Regarding claim 20:
In line 4, it is unclear which object “is a molded body made of a second resin material”. It is advised that between the words “that” and “is” should be the object which is referred to as being a molded body made of a second resin material.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gamman (GB-2040675-A).
Gamman discloses a padded frame assembly.
Claim 1 – Gamman teaches a conveyance seat (“seat” on page 1, in line 61, of the disclosure), comprising:
a support member that supports a seated occupant (figure 1),
wherein the support member includes a frame (figures 1 and 3) forming a skeleton of the support member, and a pad material that covers the frame (element 10 in figure 1), and
the pad material includes a pad body (element 12 in figures 1-3) that is located between the frame and a support surface (outer surface of element 10 in figure 1) that supports the seated occupant (figure 2), and that receives a load of the seated occupant, and an attachment portion (element 14 in figure 3) which protrudes from the pad body in a direction separating from the support surface (figure 3), and in which an engagement portion (element 8 in figure 3) that engages with the frame is formed (figure 2).
Claims 2 and 12 – Gamman teaches the engagement portion is formed inside an outer peripheral surface of the pad body (figure 3), the outer peripheral surface being formed in a direction perpendicular to the direction separating from the support surface (figure 3).
Claims 3 and 13 – Gamman teaches the engagement portion is formed at a position overlapping the frame in a direction perpendicular to the support surface (figure 2).
Claims 4 and 14 – Gamman teaches the frame includes a pair of parallel frames located at both end portions in a right to left direction or both end portions in an up to down direction, and extending parallel to each other (elements 4 and 5 in figure 1), and a connecting frame that connects the pair of parallel frames at end portions of the pair of parallel frames in a longitudinal direction (element 2 in figure 3), and
the engagement portion is formed at a position overlapping the connecting frame in the direction perpendicular to the support surface (figure 2).
Claims 5 and 15 – Gamman teaches the engagement portion is formed at a position overlapping the pair of parallel frames in the direction perpendicular to the support surface (figure 2).
Claims 6 and 16 – Gamman teaches the engagement portion is continuously formed along the connecting frame and the pair of parallel frames (figure 2).
Claims 7 and 17 – Gamman teaches the frame includes a support plate that is interposed between the pair of parallel frames and that supports the pad material (element 18 in figures 1-3).
Claims 8 and 18 – Gamman teaches the support plate is attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame by a connecting member (element 25 in figures 1 and 3) that connects the support plate and the frame (in figure 2, element 18 is connected to the frame, but also separated from the frame, and connected by element 25).
Claims 9 and 19 – Gamman teaches the support plate is attached to the frame at a position separated from the frame in a direction further away from the support surface than the frame (figure 2).
Claim 11 – Gamman teaches a method of manufacturing a conveyance seat (“seat” on page 1, in line 61, of the disclosure) having a support member that supports a seated occupant (figure 1), comprising:
preparing a frame (figures 1 and 3) that forms a skeleton of the support member;
preparing a pad material (element 10 in figure 1) that includes a pad body (element 12 in figure 1-3) configured to receive a load of the seated occupant, and an attachment portion (element 14 in figure 3) which protrudes from the pad body in a direction separating from a support surface (outer surface of element 10 in figure 1) that supports the seated occupant, and in which an engagement portion (element 8 in figure 3) is formed;
covering the frame with the pad material by engaging the engagement portion with the frame (figure 2); and
disposing the pad material such that the pad body locates between the frame and the support surface (figure 2).
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamman (GB-2040675-A) alone.
Claims 10 and 20 – Gamman teaches the pad material is a molded body.
In figure 3, the right-most object is a cross section of the pad material element 10. It can be seen that the pad material is a single piece construction, and it is explained on page 1, in lines 67-69, of the disclosure that the material is polyurethane foam. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pad material is a molded body.
Gamman is silent on the pad material being made of a first resin material.
It is explained on page 1, in lines 67-68, of the disclosure that the pad material is composed of a “flexible plastics material”, but does not specify resin as the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a first resin material as the material for the pad material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Gamman teaches the support member includes an outer pad material (element 3 in figure 1) that covers the frame and the pad material and that is a molded body (on page 1, in line 57, element 3 is described as a “moulded covering”), and that the outer pad material is different from the pad material (Gamman, on page 1, line 67 of the disclosure, specifies a “flexible” material for the pad material. Gamman, on page 1, in line 58 of the disclosure, specifies a “resilient” material for the outer pad material).
Gamman is silent on the outer pad material being made of a second resin material.
It is explained on page 1, in lines 57-59, that the outer pad material is composed of a “resilient plastics material”, but does not specify resin as the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a second resin material as the material for the pad material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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 (571) 272-6670. 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights