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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details of a rail system for pivoting the display device (i.e., the structure, how it’s integrated with the seat, how the display device operates with the rails, etc.) as described in the specification. At best the submitted drawings are not in compliance with US practice in the mechanical areas in that they are highly schematic in nature. Only one of two things can be true, either all these components are old and well-known OR there is a disclosure problem under 112a/b. Even if applicant submits the components are old and well known, it is still unknown how and where and what components make up the claim invention. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 11, as noted above in the drawing objection, (under the assumption even if the rail system is old and well known) the specification fails to disclose with sufficient specificity pertinent details to show applicant adequately possessed the invention even as claimed because there is no structure shown and limited guidance and direction is provided in the disclosure. The Examiner contends it is unknown how the rail system (fig. 2) would be mounted on the back of the seat? Where the rail system is even located? How the rail system can provide a sliding or rotational movement so that the display device can be reliably pivoted? How the rail system is connected to the display device? Etc. Given all these considerations, the examiner asserts adequate written description does not exist. See for instance, (Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) & Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Claims not directly addressed below, are rejected based upon dependency of claims rejected base claims.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second display device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 9-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks et al. (US 2009/0085383 A1), hereinafter Hicks, in view of Kostepen (US 2008/0309820 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hicks discloses a seat device for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a backrest (seat back, fig. 1), wherein the backrest has a display device on a rear side of the backrest for a person sitting behind the seat device (display 20, fig. 2), wherein the display device is pivotable by a pivoting device from an inoperative position (as shown in figs. 1 & 5, the display 20 is pivotable from the inoperative position [i.e., the stored position] and an operating position [i.e., the extended position]) into an operating position for viewing by the person (Para. [0019], “the display 120 is pivotally mounted relative to the display housing 117 to adjust the viewing angle for a particular occupant of the vehicle watching the display 120. In other words, the plane of the display 120 is movable relative to the plane defined by the front portion of the display housing 117. The display 120 may be pivotally mounted along a laterally extending horizontal axis X”; as shown in fig. 5).
However, Hicks does not appear to specifically disclose an input device, wherein the display
device is pivotable from the inoperative position into the operating position and from the operating position into the inoperative position by the input device depending on a respective input by the person and wherein the input device is a voice input device.
Kostepen is in the field of a dual display video monitor (Abstract) and teaches an input device
(Para. [0032], “[t]he movement of video monitors 20, 22 and/or the selection of single screen or dual screen mode may be voice-activated. In yet another alternative, users may manually slide first and second video monitors 20, 22 together to the second position.”), wherein the display device is pivotable from the inoperative position (fig. 2) into the operating position (fig. 3) and from the operating position into the inoperative position by the input device depending on a respective input by the person and wherein the input device is a voice input device (see Para. [0032] above).
Examiner notes, both Hicks and Kostepen disclose a display device pivotable from an inoperative position to an operating position and therefore, 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 Hicks such that the display device is pivotable via an input device wherein the input device is a voice input device as taught by Kostepen, in order to provide hands-free operation, convenience and efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Hicks discloses the invention in claim 9, and further discloses wherein in the inoperative position a display side of the display device is covered (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in light of the 112a rejection above, Hicks discloses the invention in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the pivoting device has a rail system for pivoting the display device (Para. [0015], “[t]he mechanism 40 includes a frame 42 having a pair of track members 44 formed therein. The frame 42 is attached to the trim panel 18. Sides 43 of the display housing 17 are slidably disposed in the track members 44”; as shown in figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Hicks discloses the invention in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the operating position is adjustable to a different position depending on an inclination of the backrest (Para. [0019], “the display 120 is pivotally mounted relative to the display housing 117 to adjust the viewing angle for a particular occupant of the vehicle watching the display 120”. Examiner notes, the adjustable display device provides the equivalent function).
Regarding claim 13, Hicks discloses the invention in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the display device is horizontally pivotable and/or vertically pivotable by the pivoting device (vertically pivotable chosen; see figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, Hicks discloses an arrangement for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a first seat device according to claim 9 (seat assembly 10, fig. 1).
a second seat device according to claim 9 (examiner notes a vehicle has at least a driver and passenger seat).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kostepen (US 2008/0309820 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hicks discloses the invention in claim 14, and further discloses that the first display of the first seat device are pivotable (see claim 11 above), but does not appear to specifically disclose a second display device, and wherein the first display device of the first seat device and the second display device of the second seat device are pivotable such that the first display device and the second display device form a common display surface.
Kostepen is in the field of a dual display multi-modal vehicle system (Abstract) and teaches a first and second display device (see video monitors 20, 22; fig. 3). Furthermore, Kostepen teaches wherein the first display device of the first seat device and the second display device of the second seat device are pivotable such that the first display device and the second display device form a common display surface (Para. [0026], “[t]urning now to FIGS. 3 and 4, display unit 16 also includes translation mechanism 36, which slidably couples first and second video monitors 20, 22 to housing 18 and to vehicle body 17. Translation mechanism 36 enables video monitors 20, 22 to slide relative to housing 18 and relative to one another between first spaced-apart position, shown in FIG. 3, and second joined position, shown in FIG. 4”).
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 Hicks such the first and second display devices form a common display surface as taught by Kostepen, in order to allow users to individually watch their own display screen or merge them into one shared viewing screen which can provide an immersive viewing experience. 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 second seating device of Hicks such that there was a second display device, such that each passenger in the back seat could have their own individual screen. The resulting device renders obvious wherein the first display device and the second display device are pivotable such that the first display device and the second display device from a common display surface.
Regarding claim 16, Hicks discloses a method for operating a seat device of a motor vehicle, wherein the seat device has a backrest (seat back, fig. 1) with a display device on a rear side of the backrest for a person sitting behind the seat device (display 20, fig. 2), comprising the step of:
pivoting the display device by a pivoting device from an inoperative position (as shown in figs. 1 & 5, the display 20 is pivotable from the inoperative position [i.e., the stored position] and an operating position [i.e., the extended position]) into an operating position for viewing by the person (Para. [0019], “the display 120 is pivotally mounted relative to the display housing 117 to adjust the viewing angle for a particular occupant of the vehicle watching the display 120. In other words, the plane of the display 120 is movable relative to the plane defined by the front portion of the display housing 117. The display 120 may be pivotally mounted along a laterally extending horizontal axis X”; as shown in fig. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see PTO 892.
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