And 4-20September 11, 2026
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1, 6-7, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,890,975 B2) in view of Sawada (U.S. Patent No. 8,845,019 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 13, Shin et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a vehicle seat assembly comprising:
a base support structure configured to be supported on a floor of a vehicle, wherein the base support structure comprises a first support bracket 50 on a first end and a second support bracket 410 on an opposite second end, wherein the first and second support brackets 50,410 are configured to support an underside of the front cushion tube proximate a rear end of the cushion tube;
a rear cushion tube (see annotated Fig. 1 above) coupled to the base support structure;
a front cushion tube 230 coupled to the rear cushion tube and defining a cushion support structure, the front cushion tube having a generally U-shaped portion with a first end and a second end, wherein the front cushion tube may rotate between a seating position (Fig. 1) and an upright stowed position (Figures 1 and 6);
a first pivot bracket pivotably coupling the first end of the front cushion tube to the base support structure; and a second pivot bracket pivotably coupling the second end of the front cushion tube to the base support structure; the first and second pivot brackets extending forward of the first and second support bracket;
a latch 400 fastened to the base support structure and configured to latch the seat base in the upright stowed position but do not teach that each of the first and second pivot brackets include a first bracket arm and a second bracket arm wrapped around and substantially surrounding the front cushion tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Sawada teaches the concept of brackets that include a first bracket arm and a second bracket arm that are configured to be wrapped around and substantially surround a front cushion tube, the bracket arms having an inclined portion at a front end.; wherein the pivot brackets are capable of being coupled to the rear cushion tube and comprise a sleeve for cooperatively engaging the first and send second ends, respectively, of the front cushion tube. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pivot brackets, as taught by Shin et al, to include pivot brackets that include a first bracket arm and a second bracket arm that are configured to be wrapped around and substantially surround a front cushion tube, as taught by Sawada, since the pivot brackets with the first and second bracket arms would result in a much stronger vehicle seat that is more resistant to the abnormal forces it would be subjected during a collision.
As for Claim 6, Sawada et al. teach that the first and second pivot brackets are coupled to the rear cushion tube and comprise a sleeve cooperatively engaging the first and send ends, respectively, of the front cushion tube.
As for Claim 7, Shin et al. further comprises a seat back supported by the base support structure.
As for Claim 12, Shin et al. teach that the front cushion tube has a generally rectangular cross-section.
Claim 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,890,975 B2) in view of Sawada (U.S. Patent No. 8,845,019 B2), as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gropp et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,535,124 B2).
Shin et al. in view of Sawada teaches the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the vehicle seat assembly includes a seat pan.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Gropp et al. teach a similar vehicle seat assembly that includes at least one seat pan 10 coupled to a rear cushion tube and a front cushion tube. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle seat assembly, as taught by Shin et al. in view of Sawada, to include a seat pan, as taught by Gropp et al., since seat pans in vehicle seat assemblies are well known since seat pans are configured to form or support a seat surface to provide a seat and to carry a seat cushion and /or a seat cover.
Claims 8-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,890,975 B2) in view of Sawada (U.S. Patent No. 8,845,019 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gurvich et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0250011 A1) and Sakkinen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,279,166 B2.
Shin et al. in view of Sawada teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not specify if the front cushion tube comprises Boron or if the first and second pivot brackets comprise a steel alloy having Boron.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
212
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Gurvich et al. teaches a seat frame where a tubular composite beams 222 (See Fig. 2B) may be formed of reinforcing fibers embedded in a polymeric matrix, where fibers of the reinforcing fibers may include boron. Sakkinen et al. teach the concept of making a seat structural component of a vehicle seat frame using boron treated steel, more preferably from a preferably rolled steel-plate. Preferably, a steel is chosen that has low or moderate strength, for example boron steel (DB 200) with 400-600 MPa stress at 00.2-0.07 strain. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to make the front cushion tube, as taught by Shin et al. in view of Sawada, to include boron in the front cushion tube in the specified amounts as defined in claims 9-10, as taught by Gurvich et al., since the boron reinforcement fibers would provide significant advantages, primarily reducing weight by up to 30-50% compared to a frame made of all steel and it would enhance structural stiffness, improve crashworthiness, reduce noise and vibration, and enable functional integration, resulting in thinner, more ergonomic seat designs. By using boron treated steel in the first and second pivot brackets, as taught by Sakkinen et al., it would assist in bringing the material in the desired shape, especially the intricate shapes of the vehicle seat frame parts and because the boron offers significant advantages in safety, weight reduction, and structural integrity. Boron steel is a type of ultra-high-strength steel (UHSS) that provides superior resistance to deformation and failure during high-stress scenarios like collisions, while allowing seat frames to be made thinner and lighter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights