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 Invention I and Species Group I in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 June 2026. Note that while Applicant asserts that claims 2-7 are readable on both Invention I and Species Group I, claims 6 and 7 recite “a locking mechanism” of the back frame, which is only associated with other, non-elected species. These claims have accordingly been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “rea” should read - - rear - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikawa et al. (US Patent Number 10106060).
Regarding claim 2, Ikawa discloses a conveyance seat, comprising: a seat cushion (1); a seat back (2); a slide rail (at least the lower, inner member of 24) which moves the seat cushion in a predetermined direction; and a leg member (including 10, 20, at least portions of 24, etc.) capable of collapsing the seat cushion to bring the conveyance seat into a collapsed state, wherein the leg member has a front leg portion (10) which supports a front lower portion of the seat cushion and a rear leg portion (20, upper, outer portion of 24) which supports a rear lower portion of the seat cushion, the rear leg portion has an arm portion (upper, outer portion of 24) of which one end is rotatably fixed to the rear leg portion (at least via the side frame) and the other end is connected to the slide rail, and is capable of changing a height of the seat cushion while the seat back is raised on the seat cushion (this is the general manner of operation; note that any position of the seat back would be “raised” on the seat cushion as it remains above relative thereto).
Regarding claim 3, Ikawa further discloses the front leg portion is foldable such that one end of the front leg portion is rotatably fixed to the front lower portion of the seat cushion and the other end of the front leg portion is position behind the front end of the seat cushion, and wherein the rear leg portion is capable of changing a height of the seat cushion while the front leg portion is folded (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 5, Ikawa further discloses the front leg portion and the rear leg portion are positioned overlapping each other in the vertical direction of the seat in the side view when the conveyance seat is the collapsed state (see figures).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kammerer (US Patent Number 8424969).
Regarding claim 2, Kammerer discloses a conveyance seat, comprising: a seat cushion (3); a seat back (5); a slide rail (9) which moves the seat cushion in a predetermined direction; and a leg member (including 13, 27, 29, etc.) capable of collapsing the seat cushion to bring the conveyance seat into a collapsed state, wherein the leg member has a front leg portion (13) which supports a front lower portion of the seat cushion and a rear leg portion (27, 29) which supports a rear lower portion of the seat cushion, the rear leg portion has an arm portion (29) of which one end is rotatably fixed to the rear leg portion (at least via the side frame) and the other end is connected to the slide rail, and is capable of changing a height of the seat cushion while the seat back is raised on the seat cushion (this is the general manner of operation; note that any position of the seat back would be “raised” on the seat cushion as it remains above relative thereto).
Regarding claim 3, Kammerer further discloses the front leg portion is foldable such that one end of the front leg portion is rotatably fixed to the front lower portion of the seat cushion and the other end of the front leg portion is position behind the front end of the seat cushion, and wherein the rear leg portion is capable of changing a height of the seat cushion while the front leg portion is folded (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 4, Kammerer further discloses the arm portion is provided below the seat cushion and disposed rearward of the rear leg portion (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12172558. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide the components as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it discloses a range of related devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights