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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 60A.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied phraseology such as “There is provided” and because it refers to the purported merits of the invention (e.g. “can be easily provided” and “perform efficient air conditioning”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 claims 1 and 11, each claim recites an interior member “composed of at least a conveyance seat”. However, the transitional phrase “composed of” excludes elements not specified in the claim (see MPEP 2111.03 IV.) and thus the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For examination purposes the claims are presumed to instead recite “comprising at least a conveyance seat”.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claims 1 or 11.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneno (US 2007/0193279)
As to claim 1, Yoneno discloses a conveyance assembly comprising:
an interior member comprising a conveyance seat 10;
wherein the interior member includes an air conditioning device including a housing, a blowing device 14, and a heating device 16/32 accommodated in the housing and disposed in a blowing direction of air blown by the blowing device 14 (Figs. 1 and 7-8; paragraph 60).
As to claim 2, Yoneno discloses a housing blowing port at 13, wherein the heating device 16/32 is adjacent to the blowing port (Figs. 1 and 7-8).
As to claims 11-12, Yoneno discloses the claimed configuration as discussed above and thus necessarily includes the claimed manufacturing steps.
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 3-4, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno as applied above, and further in view of Nii (US 2016/0107551).
As to claims 3-4, Yoneno is silent regarding specific mounting of the air conditioning device, and thus does not explicitly teach a seat frame attachment as claimed. However, Nii teaches using a seat frame and connecting a blower to said frame (paragraphs 19-20). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoneno to utilize a frame attachment as claimed in order to provides structural support for the seat 10 and air conditioning device.
As to claims 7-8, the modified apparatus includes additional members attached to the side frame at a different location than the blower (Figs. 1-3; paragraphs 19-21).
As to claims 13-14 and 17-18, the modified apparatus teaches the claimed configuration as discussed above and thus necessarily includes the claimed manufacturing steps.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno and Nii as applied above, and further in view of Kikuchi (JP 2017-178276, see attached English translation).
As to claim 5, while Yoneno teaches holes 26 at a side portion of the seat 10 (Figs. 24-25), the modified apparatus does not explicitly include bolsters with ventilation holes as claimed. However, Kikuchi teaches that it is known to use bolsters having blow out ports 6R and 6L (Fig. 3). therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoneno to utilize bolster portions as claimed to provide a combination of support and comfort control for the user.
As to claim 6, the modified apparatus includes the configurations of Nii and Kikuchi and thus includes a seat cushion (Kikuchi, Fig. 3) with the air conditioning device attached to a side frame (Nii, paragraphs 19-20).
As to claims 15-16, the modified apparatus teaches the claimed configuration as discussed above and thus necessarily includes the claimed manufacturing steps.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno as applied above, and further in view of Aoki (US 2008/0248736).
As to claims 9-10, Yoneno does not explicitly teach the air conditioning device being attached to a door lining or floor member as claimed. However, Aoki teaches using an air conditioning device 4 that is attached to a floor (Fig. 1, paragraph 27) and a door at 43 (Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoneno to include door and/or floor connections for the air conditioning device as taught by Aoki in order to provide additional conditioning zones for the comfort of the user.
As to claims 19-20, the modified apparatus teaches the claimed configuration as discussed above and thus necessarily includes the claimed manufacturing steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights