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 .
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, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No.7,722,116 B2 (Takada et al.) in view of US Patent Application No. 2014/0010387 A1 (Cohen) and further in view of US Patent No. 2010/0079264 (Hoellwarth).
The ‘116 patent to Takada et al. teaches:
“A chair comprising: a seating area and a backrest, wherein the seating area is arranged at a lower end of the backrest”
The ’116 patent teaches a vehicle seat/chair including a seating portion and a backrest. See col. 3:50-60; Figs. 1-3.
“a low frequency speaker configured to emit sound at frequencies of between 20 Hz and 200 Hz”
The ’116 patent teaches a low-frequency speaker/transducer configured to generate low-frequency vibration and tactile feedback to a seated occupant. See col. 4:11-40; col. 5:10-28.
The ’387 patent Application to (Cohen) further teaches vibration-generating transducers operating beginning at approximately 20 Hz. See paras. [0031]-[0039].; Figs. 2-5.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the low-frequency tactile transducer teachings of the ’387 publication into the vehicle-seat tactile vibration system of the ’116 patent in order to improve tactile feedback transmission and low-frequency vibration control.
“a coupling mechanism configured to change between at least two different states”
The ’387 publication teaches coupling structures selectively movable between engaged and disengaged states. See paras. [0031]-[0039]; Figs. 2-5.
The ’264 patent Application to Hoellwarth further teaches haptic transmission structures configurable between transmission states and vibration isolation states. See paras. [0028]-[0036] and [0055]-[0059].
It would have been obvious to incorporate the selectively controllable haptic transmission structures of the ’264 patent Application into the selectively coupled transducer structures of the ’387 Patent Application and the tactile seat system of the ’116 patent in order to selectively enable or disable tactile vibration transfer depending upon user preference and operating conditions.
“wherein, in a first state, the low frequency speaker is coupled to the chair via at least one acoustical path such that vibrations are transmitted from the low frequency speaker to the chair via each of the at least one acoustical path”
The ’116 patent teaches a vibration-conducting structure coupling the low-frequency speaker/transducer to the seat structure such that vibrations are transmitted through the chair. See col. 5:10-42.
The ’387 Patent Application further teaches engaged coupling paths transmitting vibration between structures. See paras. [0045]-[0050].
“wherein the vibrations can be perceived as tactile feedback by a user seated on the chair”
The ’116 patent expressly teaches tactile vibration perception by the seated occupant. See col. 1:20-35; col. 5:20-42.
“and, in a second state, each of the at least one acoustical path is interrupted such that no or almost no vibrations are transmitted from the low frequency speaker to the chair”
The ’264 Patent Application teaches second states in which haptic transmission is dampened or prevented. See paras. [0040]-[0048].
The ’387 Patent Application further teaches disengaged states interrupting vibration transfer paths. See paras. [0051]-[0056]. In addition, note the paragraphs above with respect to the ‘264 Patent Application.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the vibration interruption structures of the ’264 Patent Application into the selectively engageable coupling structures of the ’387 publication and the seat vibration system of the ’116 patent in order to selectively disable or substantially reduce tactile vibration transmission.
“that cannot be perceived as tactile feedback by a user seated on the chair”
The combination of the ’387 Patent Application and the ’264 Patent Application teaches substantially interrupting vibration transmission such that tactile perception is substantially minimized or eliminated. See paras. [0040]-[0048] of Patent Application ‘264 and [0051]-[0056] o the ‘387 Patent Application.
Claims 11 and 16 recite substantially corresponding limitations and are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 2, 12 and 17 recites:
“wherein the low frequency speaker is arranged at the backrest”
The ’116 patent teaches a low-frequency speaker/transducer arranged in the backrest portion of the vehicle seat. See col. 4:10-25; Figs. 1-3.
Claim 3, 13 and 18 recites:
“wherein the low frequency speaker is coupled directly to the chair”
The ’116 patent teaches a vibration-conducting structure directly coupling the speaker/transducer to the seat structure such that vibrations are transmitted directly through the seat. See col. 5:10-42.
The ’387 publication further teaches direct coupling between a transducer and a support structure. See paras. [0045]-[0050].
Claim 4 recites:
“wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to interrupt the direct coupling in the second state”
The ’264 publication teaches second states in which haptic transmission is dampened or prevented. See paras. [0040]-[0048].
The ’387 publication further teaches disengaged states interrupting vibration transfer paths. See paras. [0051]-[0056].
Claim 10 recites
“wherein the chair is a car seat”
Note 3:52-67 and Figs. 1 – 3 of ‘116 Patent Application
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 14-15 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 -7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
30May2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights