++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.
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.
Claims 1 & 4 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeshima JPS5847632A (hereinafter Nabeshima) in view of Oberbeck DE 10207262 C1 (hereinafter Oberbeck).
Re. Cl. 1, Nabeshima discloses a vehicle seat (Fig. 1, Ref. S) providing multiple seating configurations, the vehicle seat comprising: a seat cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 1); an upper seatback rotatably coupled to the seat cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 3), the upper seatback including an opening formed therein (Fig. 1, Ref. 5); and a lower seatback configured to be located inside the opening (Fig. 1, Ref. 7), the lower seatback rotatably coupled to the seat cushion so as to be unfolded toward a rear side of the seat cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 7), wherein the seat cushion in conjunction with the upper seatback and the lower seat are configured to form a forward seating configuration (See Fig. 1), wherein when the upper seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 1) is rotated to face the seat cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 3) and the lower seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 7) is rotated toward the rear side of the seat cushion, an inner edge of the opening (Fig. 1, Ref. 5) is exposed the rearward seating configuration is formed to be inclined relative to the seat cushion (See Fig 1).
Re. Cl. 1, Nabeshima fails to disclose a rearward seating configuration in which a passenger is supported from behind by the inner edge. Oberbeck teaches a vehicle seat such that when the upper seatback (Fig. 3, Ref. 3) is rotated to face the seat cushion (Fig. 3, Ref. 2) and the lower seatback is rotated away from the seat cushion (Fig. 3, Ref. 3b), an inner edge of the opening (Fig. 3, Ref. 3a) is exposed to form a rearward seating configuration in which a passenger is supported from behind by the inner edge (See Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nabeshima with Oberbeck’s teaching of a rearward seating configuration in which a passenger is supported from behind by the inner edge. Doing so provides a built-in backrest to support an occupant when the seat is in the rearward seating configuration within the components of the existing seat in the forward seating configuration.
Re. Cl. 4, Nabeshima discloses an angle formed between the seat cushion and the inner edge is defined by an inclined line extending along the inner edge and through the opening and a horizontal line extending along the seat cushion and becomes maximum when the upper seatback and the seat cushion are rotated to be adjacent to each other, and the angle is adjusted to gradually decrease when the upper seatback is rotated in a direction toward an initial position thereof (Fig 1, Para. 2).
Re. Cl. 5, Nabeshima discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein, when the upper seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 3) is rotated in a direction facing the seat cushion, the lower seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 7) is configured to be rotated so as to unfold toward the rear side of the seat cushion in conjunction with rotation of the upper seatback (See Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 6, Nabeshima discloses the vehicle seat of claim 5, wherein the lower seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 7) is formed to be able to adjust a rotation angle thereof in a state of being unfolded toward the rear side of the seat cushion (See Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 7, Nabeshima discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, wherein the lower seatback (Fig. 1, Ref. 7) is configured to be rotated so as to unfold toward the rear side of the seat cushion independently of the upper seatback (See Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 8, Nabeshima discloses a seat cushion (Fig. 1, Ref. 1).
Re. Cl. 8, Nabeshima fails to disclose a seat cushion that is mounted on a seat rail, and the seat cushion is slidably movable along the seat rail in a forward-and-rearward direction. Oberbeck teaches a seat cushion (Fig. 3, Ref. 2) in a backrest adjustable vehicle seat that is mounted on a seat rail (Fig. 3, Ref. 6), and the seat cushion is slidably movable along the seat rail in a forward-and-rearward direction (Fig. 3, Ref. 6; Para. 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nabeshima with Oberbeck's teaching of a seat cushion that is mounted on a seat rail, and the seat cushion is slidably movable along the seat rail in a forward-and-rearward direction. Doing so would allow for forward-and-rearward adjustability of the seat for comfortable seating and proper driving form for different occupants.
Re. Cl. 9, Nabeshima discloses that the inner edge is U-shaped (Fig. 1, Ref. 5).
Re. Cl. 10, Nabeshima discloses that the angle is adjustable from near 0 degrees to more than 90 degrees (Fig. 1, Ref. 3; Para. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art devices are not physically combinable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Regardless of the directions in which the seat segments of Nabeshima and Oberbeck recline, Oberbeck teaches the principle of a passenger supported from behind by the inner edge when the seat is in a rearward seating configuration. Thus, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Nabeshima in view of Oberbeck is maintained.
Regarding the argument that “the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness”, the requirements for a prima facie case of obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2143. The MPEP recites that obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP 2143.01. As explained in the previous Office action, the seats of Nabeshima and Oberbeck are analogous arts, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nabeshima with Oberbeck in order to provide a built-in backrest. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Nabeshima in view of Oberbeck meets the requirements for a prima facie case per the rationale in MPEP 2143.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeong et al. US 20230191960 A1, West et al. US 7517016 B1, Theander et al. US 20180079329 A1, Neal et al. US 20210016688 A1, Sasaki US 20180201162 A1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELILA S KEBEDE whose telephone number is (571)270-0369. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 2:00PM, Mon - Thurs.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571) 272-4797. 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.
/GELILA KEBEDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights