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 Objections
Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preambles of the claims state “The seat of claim […]”. The preambles should read “The stowable vehicle seat of claim […]”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsuhashi teaches a stowable vehicle seat comprising: a seat back (Fig. 2 element 3); a seat bottom (Fig. 2 element 2) coupled to the seat back; and a supporting linkage (Fig. 2 elements 14 and 15) configured to transition the seat between a use position and a stowed position (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-4), the supporting linkage comprising: one or more rear links pivotably coupled to the seat bottom and configured to pivotably couple to a vehicle floor at a rear link pivot point (Fig. 2 element 14); and a break link pivotably coupled at a first end to the seat bottom at a first pivot point and configured to pivotably couple at a second end to the vehicle floor at a second pivot point (Fig. 2 element 15); wherein a distance between the first pivot point and the second pivot point changes as the seat transitions between the use position and the stowed position (Fig. 5 shows pivot connection of element 15 movable when transitioning between usable/stowable configurations).
Regarding Claim 2, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the break link is coupled to the seat bottom forward of the one or more rear links (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the break link comprising: a first segment pivotably coupled to the seat bottom at the first pivot point (Fig. 3 element 40); and a second segment pivotably coupled to the first segment at a third pivot point and configured to pivotably couple to the vehicle floor at the second pivot point (Fig. 3 element 41).
Regarding Claim 4, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the break link further comprising a stop configured to limit relative rotation between the first segment and the second segment to between 0 degrees and 45 degrees (Fig. 1 elements 30 and 42).
Regarding Claim 5, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the break link further comprising a stop configured to limit relative rotation between the first segment and the second segment, the stop comprising: a pin coupled to the first segment; and a slot in the second segment to receive the pin, wherein the pin moves along the slot as the seat transitions from the use position to the stowed position (“A fixing hole 42 in the lower link member 41 is a long hole larger than the diameter of the shaft portion of the bolt 30. It is therefore possible to address a dimensional error or the like in the intermediate link 15” Col. 7 lines 18-22).
Regarding Claim 7, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a guide pin extending from the break link, wherein as the seat transitions from the use position to the stowed position the guide pin engages with the one or more rear links to alter rotation of the break link (Fig. 5 element 23).
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the break link is laterally offset from the one or more rear links across a width of the seat bottom (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the one or more rear links comprising a first rear link and a second rear link, wherein each of the first rear link, the second rear link, and the break link are laterally offset such that each of the first rear link, the second rear link, and the break link are coupled to the seat bottom at different locations along the width of the seat bottom (Fig. 2 element 11f).
Regarding Claim 10, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the rear link pivot point is vertically offset from the second pivot point (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the supporting linkage moves the seat in a non-uniform path comprising a substantially vertical section between the use position and the stowed position (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-4).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Mitsuhashi teaches a stowable vehicle seat comprising: a seat (Fig. 2 element 1); and a supporting linkage (Fig. 2 elements 14, 15 and 11f) configured to transition the seat between a use position and a stowed position (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-4), the supporting linkage comprising: a first rear link (Fig. 2 element 14) and a second rear link (Fig. 2 element 11f), each of the first and second rear links pivotably coupled to the seat and configured to pivotably couple to a vehicle floor (Shown in Fig. 2); a first break link pivotably coupled to the seat at a first pivot point (Fig. 3 element 40); a second break link pivotably coupled to the first break link and configured to pivotably couple to the vehicle floor at a second pivot point (Fig. 3 element 41); and a distance between the first pivot point and the second pivot point defining a virtual link, wherein a length of the virtual link changes as the seat transitions between the use position and the stowed position (Fig. 5 shows pivot connection of element 15 movable when transitioning between usable/stowable configurations).
Regarding Claim 13, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses a change in length of the virtual link causes a path of the seat between the use position and the stowed position to be non-uniform (Fig. 5 shows pivot connection of element 15 movable when transitioning between usable/stowable configurations).
Regarding Claim 16, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses each of the first rear link, the second rear link, and the first break link are laterally offset such that each of the first rear link, the second rear link, and the first break link are coupled to the seat at different locations along a width of the seat (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses a guide pin extending away from the second break link (Fig. 5 element 23), wherein the guide pin laterally overlaps one of the first rear link or the second rear link (Shown in Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2).
Regarding Claim 18, Mitsuhashi teaches a method of stowing a vehicle seat comprising: providing a seat coupled to a floor of a vehicle (Fig. 2 element 1) via a supporting linkage (Fig. 2 elements 14 and 15) comprising: one or more rear links pivotably coupled to the seat and pivotably coupled to the floor at a rear link point (Fig. 2 element 14); and a break link pivotably coupled at a first end to the seat at a first pivot point and pivotably couple at a second end to the floor at a second pivot point (Fig. 2 element 15); and applying a force to seat to transition the seat from a use position to a stowed position, wherein a distance between the first pivot point and the second pivot point changes as the seat moves between the use position and the stowed position (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 20, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 18 and further discloses a path of the seat from the use position to the stowed position is non-uniform and comprises a substantially vertical portion proximate the stowed position (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-4).
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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2) in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20010052718 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Mitsuhashi fails to explicitly teach a spring coupled to the second segment and the pin and configured to bias the pin down when the seat is in the use position.
However, Sugiura teaches a spring coupled to the second segment and the pin and configured to bias the pin down when the seat is in the use position (Fig. 15 element 206).
Mitsuhashi and Sugiura are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of stowable vehicle seats. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the link segments of Mitsuhashi with the spring biasing member as disclosed by Sugiura. Doing so would provide a biasing force pushing the seat into the usable configuration. This would reduce the risk of the seat moving rearward toward the stowable configuration during use.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2) in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20010052718 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Mitsuhashi fails to explicitly teach one or more springs biasing at least one of the first rear link or the second rear link towards the use position.
However, Sugiura teaches one or more springs biasing at least one of the first rear link or the second rear link towards the use position (Fig. 15 element 206).
Mitsuhashi and Sugiura are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of stowable vehicle seats. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the links of Mitsuhashi with the spring biasing member as disclosed by Sugiura. Doing so would provide a biasing force pushing the seat into the usable configuration. This would reduce the risk of the seat moving rearward toward the stowable configuration during use.
Regarding Claim 15, Mitsuhashi and Sugiura teach the limitations set forth in Claim 15.
Sugiura further discloses a force of the one or more springs is greater than a weight of the seat (“as shown in FIG. 15, the elastic force generated by the springs 205, 206 acts on the seat 201 so as to be constantly kept lifted in the upward direction” Par. [0075] lines 14-17).
Claim(s) 19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (US 7828358 B2) in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20010052718 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Mitsuhashi teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 18.
Mitsuhashi fails to explicitly teach one or more springs coupled to the one or more rear links applying a spring force to bias the one or more rear links towards the use position, wherein the force is greater than the spring force.
However, Sugiura teaches one or more springs coupled to the one or more rear links applying a spring force to bias the one or more rear links towards the use position, wherein the force is greater than the spring force (“as shown in FIG. 15, the elastic force generated by the springs 205, 206 acts on the seat 201 so as to be constantly kept lifted in the upward direction” Par. [0075] lines 14-17).
Mitsuhashi and Sugiura are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of stowable vehicle seats. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the links of Mitsuhashi with the spring biasing member as disclosed by Sugiura. Doing so would provide a biasing force pushing the seat into the usable configuration. This would reduce the risk of the seat moving rearward toward the stowable configuration during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights