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 in the reply filed on 20 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 July 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-4 and 6 are 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 2 recites the limitation “the respective air cell” in line 3, "the front surface" in line 5, “the seat-outer-side surface” in line 7, and “the bottom surface” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 2 further recites “a seat-inner-side surface” in line 2; it is unclear if this is the same seat-inner-side surface recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the seat-inner-side surface of each cap member” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (as this surface was only associated with the restriction member and no cap member has been introduced). Claim 3 further recites “the left side” and “the right side,” which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites “a control unit” in line . It is unclear if this is the same control unit introduced in claim 1 or a new and separate limitation.
Claim 4 is deemed indefinite because it is dependent on an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoi et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0321590) in view of JP 63-183015 (as provided by Applicant; machine translation to English attached).
Regarding claim 1, Mizoi discloses a vehicle seat including a seat cushion and a seat back and configured to be installed in a vehicle (this is the general arrangement), comprising: a drive unit (including 4, 10, and related equipment, etc.) for deforming the seat back to selectively regulate a lateral movement of an upper body of a seated occupant; and a control unit (at least 50), which makes the drive unit deform the seat back, wherein the seat back includes a seat back body (of S1) configured to support a back of the occupant and a pair of left and right restriction members (shoulder and/or side portions for instance)) respectively joined to left and right side surfaces of the seat back body, the drive unit includes a pair of left and right air cells (4 and/or 10) provided forward of the seat back and an air supply and discharge device (including 52-54 for instance) for supplying air to and discharging air from each of the left and right air cells, and each of the left and right air cells expands toward seat-inner-side when supplied with air and respectively cause seat-inner-side side surfaces of the left and right restriction members to protrude toward a seat inner side so as to regulate the lateral movement of the upper body of the occupant (this is the general arrangement). Mizoi does not disclose a lateral acceleration unit. JP ‘015 discloses a related device including a lateral acceleration acquisition unit (at least 24) configured to acquire a lateral acceleration applied to an occupant; and a control unit (21 for instance) which, based on the lateral acceleration acquired by the lateral acceleration acquisition unit, makes a drive unit deform a seat back to oppose an inertial force acting on the upper body of the occupant (this would be the general manner of operation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a lateral acceleration unit as taught by JP ‘015 in Mizoi’s device because this could improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 2, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses each restriction member includes a restriction member main body provided at a seat-inner-side surface thereof with an accommodation recess for accommodating the respective air cell therein (see for instance Figure 7A showing a recess in Sa1 accommodating 10), and a cap member (25) that covers the respective air cell from the seat inner side, the accommodation recess is positioned forward of the front surface of the seat back body (at least in part), the seat-outer-side side surface of the cap member is combined to the respective air cell, and the respective air cell is combined to the bottom surface of the respective accommodation recess (this is the general arrangement; again, see at least Figure 7A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses touch sensors (at least 41) to detect a contact to respective members, the control unit makes the air supply and discharge device supply air to the air cells and/or discharge air from the air cells based on contact detection but may not clearly disclose the arrangement of sensors or association with the lateral acceleration unit as claimed. Rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sensors arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve convenience, safety, and comfort for various users. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the functionality with the lateral acceleration unit as claimed because this would ensure proper operation of the combination to improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 5, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses the lateral acceleration acquisition unit includes one of an acceleration sensor provided on/in the seat back or the seat cushion, a steering angle sensor configured to acquire a steering angle of the vehicle, or a car navigation system installed in the vehicle and storing map information, a position of the vehicle, and a travel schedule of the vehicle (the combination would provide at least an acceleration sensor located as claimed as in JP ‘015). Note that even if the location of the sensor were not clearly as claimed, rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sensor arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve convenience, safety, and comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 6, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses a seating sensor (or 41 and/or weight sensors as in paragraph 180, etc.) provided in the seat cushion or the seat back to detect seating of the occupant, wherein a control unit, when the seating of the occupant is detected by the seating sensor, makes the drive unit deform the seat back to regulate the lateral movement of the upper body of the occupant (this would be the general manner of operation of the combination).
Regarding claim 7, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses each of the seat cushion and the seat back includes a frame forming a skeleton, a pad member supported by the frame, and a skin member covering at least a part of a surface of the pad member (see at least paragraph 98).
Regarding claim 8, Mizoi, modified as described, further discloses a headrest (S3) provided in an upper part of the seat back, and the vehicle seat is supported on a floor to be slidably movable in the fore and aft direction (see at least paragraph 231), but may not clearly disclose a reclining mechanism. Seats with lower ends of seat backs pivotally supported by rear ends of the seat cushions via a reclining mechanisms are old and well-known. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a reclining mechanism as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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