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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Note that it would appear that Applicant could enter the drawings under 37 CFR 1.57(b) to avoid submitting new matter (see MPEP 601.01(g)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 has a period in line 22; claims 2 and 5 include capitalization within the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 8, and 13 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 7 recites “the rail comprises… [a] bar mounted with the ability to slide, on the rail, and the rail able to take two positions” that are based on extension of the bar relative to the rail. It is initially unclear if this language is indicating the rail slidable relative to itself (which would itself be unclear). Moreover, it would appear that perhaps it is the slider that includes a sliding bar?
Claim 8 recites “for example…” It is unclear if the associated limitations are actually required by the claim.
Claim 13 recites “a housing of negative shape.” It is unclear what might constitute such a “negative” shape.
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) 1-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizelle (US Patent Number 4186960) in view of Arias (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0067829).
Regarding claim 1, Mizelle discloses a seat for a vehicle, the seat comprising a frame intended to be rigidly attached to a vehicle chassis, a first panel referred to as a seat panel (including 20/20A) and a second panel referred to as a backrest panel (including 22/22A), with the seat panel and the backrest panel hinged together about at least one first rotating axle (at 25 and/or 52 for instance, or at their juncture as in Figure 8) integral with at least one of the seat panel and the backrest panel and extending in a transverse direction such that the seat can take at least the following two positions: a sitting position with the backrest panel and the seat panel substantially at right angles to one another (see Figures 3 and 8); a sleeping position in which the backrest panel and seat panel are substantially in line with each other in a longitudinal direction (see Figures 4 and 9), in such a way as to form a sleeping surface, the seat further comprising a sliding system (including 30/30A, 32/32A, 38/38A, 40/40A, etc.) for integral movement of the seat panel and backrest panel relative to the seat frame in a longitudinal direction, and a locking system (including 62, 100, etc.) for locking and unlocking the sliding system at least when the seat is in the sitting position, the seat being characterized as further comprising at least one third panel (including 90/90A) referred to as an extension panel, hinged on one side relative to the backrest panel about at least one second rotating axle extending in the transverse direction (at 204), different to the first transverse axle, and on the other hand relative to the frame about a third transverse axle different to the first transverse axle and to the second transverse axle (at 201), such that: in the sitting position, the extension panel is substantially folded back against the backrest panel; in the sleeping position, the extension panel and backrest panel are substantially in line with each other longitudinally (see figures). Mizelle does not disclose a seat belt and may not clearly show the locking arrangement in the second embodiment, which shows the claimed extension panel pivot. Regarding the locking, it is disclosed in the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the locking arrangement of Mizelle’s fist embodiment in Mizelle’s second embodiment as this would ensure safety and comfort for various users. Regarding the seat belt, Arias discloses a related device including a seat also comprising at least one seat belt with at least two attachment points (SB-5 and SB-24 for instance), the belt comprising at least one strap (SB-1) with one end designed to be rigidly attached to the vehicle chassis (at SB-24 for instance), the abovementioned belt comprising at least one hook (at SB-25) integral with the strap and comprising at least one housing (of SB-5) for receiving this hook, with the housing designed to be rigidly attached to the vehicle chassis (at least inasmuch as in the invention). 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 seat belt as taught by Arias in Mizelle’s device because this could improve user safety and security.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mizelle, modified as described, further discloses the seat panel comprises an upper surface intended to be in contact with a user and a lower surface (see figures), and wherein the housing can take at least two positions: a retracted position, in which the housing is located in an area underneath the lower surface of the seat panel (much as in Figure 33 of Arias); a hanging position, in which the housing is located at least partly in an area above the lower surface of the seat panel (much as in Figure 32 of Arias), wherein the housing is in the hanging position at least when the seat is in the sitting position, and the housing is in the retracted position at least when the seat is in the sleeping position (the combination would be capable of such). Note that while the combination is viewed as providing the positions and combinations as claimed based on the arrangement of the reference devices, even if this were not clear, changes in size, shape, and arrangement 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 arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 4, Mizelle, modified as described, further discloses the seat belt is a three-point seat belt (as in Arias), but may not clearly disclose details of the belt. Arias further discloses the seat comprising a vertical strut (at G-13 for instance) intended to be rigidly attached to the vehicle chassis (at least via the seat) and on which the three belt attachment points are formed (at least indirectly), with the strap being guided at least part of the way along the strut (see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further provide a seat belt as taught by Arias in Mizelle’s device because this could improve user safety and security.
Regarding claim 5, Mizelle, modified as described, further discloses the locking system comprises at least one strike plate (101) rigidly attached to at least one of the seat panel or the backrest panel, and which comprises at least one lock (110) rigidly attached to the frame, with the locking system able to take two positions: a locked position, in which the strike plate is kept in the lock (i.e. fixed thereto), with the seat in the sitting position; an unlocked position, in which the strike plate is moved away from the lock (once unlocked, it can be moved away); wherein the locking system changes from the locked position to the unlocked position by operation of a locking pin (100). While Mizelle is viewed as disclosing this arrangement in the relevant embodiment as explained above, even if this weren’t clear, duplication and 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 a locking arrangement as claimed because this would ensure safety and comfort for various users.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Mizelle, modified as described, further discloses the sliding system comprises at least one longitudinal rail (42/42A) on the frame and at least one slider (30/30A, 32/32A) on the seat panel cooperating with this rail, in which the rail comprises at least one longitudinal sliding bar mounted with the ability to slide, on the rail, and the rail able to take at least two positions: a retracted position, in which a minimum length of the sliding bar extends beyond the rail in the longitudinal direction, with the seat in the sitting position; a deployed position, in which a maximum length of the sliding bar extends beyond the rail in the longitudinal direction, with the seat in the sleeping position (at least as best understood; i.e. a bar at 28/28A or of 30/30A, 32/32A provides these positions; see Figures 3, 4, 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 15, Mizelle, modified as described, further discloses a vehicle comprising at least one seat according to claim 1 (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizelle in view of Arias and further in view of Line et al. (US Patent Number 11059399). Mizelle, modified as described, discloses a seat as explained above but does not disclose securement of a child seat. Such are well-known as shown by Line who discloses a related device including a seat panel comprising a plate fitted with hooks (42a, 42b) to form a safety system, for example of the Isofix and/or I-size type, designed for securing a child seat (see Figure 3). 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 panel and hooks as taught by Line in Mizelle’s device as previously modified because this could improve safety and security for various users.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizelle in view of Arias and further in view of Putnam (US Patent Number 2696246).
Regarding claims 9-11, Mizelle, modified as described, discloses a seat as explained above but does not disclose a lateral extension system. Putnam discloses a related device including a lateral extension system, which comprises at least one support (including 11 intended to support a cushion (it would be capable of such), with the support mounted with the ability to slide on at least one panel (10) in a transverse direction, and the lateral extension system being able to take at least two positions: a retracted position in which the support is integrated into the panel on which it is mounted; a deployed position in which the support is at least partially extended out from the panel on which it is mounted (this is the general arrangement; see Figure 4), wherein said support is equipped with a pivoting leg (including 25) intended to be in contact with a vehicle floor when the support is in the deployed position. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an extension system as taught by Putnam in Mizelle’s device as previously modified because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users. Note that the combination would provide at least one of the seat panel, the backrest panel and the extension panel on which the support is mounted comprises a cushion (as in Mizelle), and wherein the support in the retracted position is integrated into the cushion of the panel on which the support is mounted (i.e. Putnam’s support would be integrated with Mizelle’s cushion).
Regarding claim 12, Mizelle, modified as described, discloses a seat as explained above but may not clearly disclose a number of supports. Duplication and 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 three supports as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizelle in view of Arias and further in view of Yokohama et al. (US Patent Number 4065174). Mizelle, modified as described, discloses a seat as explained above including a headrest (at least an upper portion of the backrest) but does not disclose a housing. Yokohama discloses a related device including a backrest panel comprising at least one headrest (at least an upper portion thereof), and in which an extension panel comprises a housing (21) of negative shape corresponding to the headrest, such that in a sleeping position the headrest of the backrest panel is inserted into the housing of the extension panel (see figures). 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 housing as taught by Yokohama in Mizelle’s device as previously modified because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizelle in view of Aria and further in view of Fafard et al. (US Patent Number 9370245). Mizelle, modified as described, discloses a seat as explained above but does not disclose an actuator. Fafard discloses a related device including an actuator (410 and/or 460) for moving a seat from a sitting position to a sleeping position and vice versa, with the actuator comprising at least one electrically-operated actuator (see the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5), and the actuator being supported on one side by a frame and on the other by an extension panel (this would be the case at the very least indirectly). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an actuator as taught by Fafard in Mizelle’s device as previously modified because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because they represent a variety 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