3Notice 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 .
Power of Attorney
The examiner notes that the power of attorney filed 12/02/2024 was not accepted. Please see Notice Regarding Power of Attorney mailed on 12/11/2024.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, The term “roughly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the height of the side seat structure relative to the seat back is rendered indefinite. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will read the limitation as “the side seat is divided in a height direction of the side seat into an upper side seat that is formed so as to be fixed to the main seat and a lower side seat that is formed independently from the main seat”, as it is unclear what “roughly at the center” defines. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as above due to dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites in the preamble the subcombination of a “seat structure” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the seat structure and a door armrest/door trim/vehicle door/vehicle cabin. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a door armrest/door trim/vehicle door/vehicle cabin is not an inherent component of the seat structure. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will consider the limitation to read a position where the side seat is capable of being divided in the height direction is within 10 mm above a door armrest in a vehicle-height direction, the door armrest being provided on a door trim of a vehicle door on a vehicle cabin side. 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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 101(a)(2) as being anticipated by Line et al. (US 20180265010 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Line teaches a seat structure (Fig. 2A element 10) comprising a seat back including a main seat (Fig. 2A element 66) that is able to be tilted backward and a side seat (Fig. 2A structure surrounding recliner hearts 82 and elements 76) that bulges forward in a vehicle front-rear direction on a lateral side of the main seat, wherein the side seat extends from a lateral portion of the main seat to a vehicle-width-directional outer side (Shown in Fig. 2A), and is divided in a height direction of the side seat, roughly at a center of the side seat in the height direction, into an upper side seat that is formed so as to be fixed to the main seat (Fig. 2A elements 76) and a lower side seat that is formed independently from the main seat (Fig. 2A structure surrounding recliner hearts 82).
Regarding Claim 2, Line teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the lower side seat is positioned on a front side of the upper side seat in the vehicle front-rear direction, when the seat back is at a default position (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Line teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a position where the side seat is divided in the height direction is within 10 mm above a door armrest in a vehicle-height direction, the door armrest being provided on a door trim of a vehicle door on a vehicle cabin side (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Line teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses an upper surface of the lower side seat appears when the main seat is tilted backward, the upper surface extending in the vehicle front-rear direction (Fig. 2A shows exposed upper surface of structure surrounding recliner hearts 82 when in the reclined position).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line et al. (US 20180265010 A1) in view of Suyama et al. (JP H10166914 A) cited in the IDS filed for the instant application on 12/02/2024.
Regarding Claim 3, Line teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Line fails to explicitly teach the main seat and the side seat are provided at a seat back of a rear seat of a vehicle.
However, Suyama teaches the main seat and the side seat are provided at a seat back of a rear seat of a vehicle (Shown in Fig. 3).
Line and Suyama are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of reclinable 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 seat structure of Line to be implemented on a vehicle rear seat as disclosed by Suyama. Doing so would allow the rear vehicle seat to recline while providing an elbow rest after transitioning to the reclined position. Reclinable rear vehicle seats are known in the art and are not considered novel.
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