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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (‘907) in view of Lee (‘550).
For claim 1, Nakano (2020/02546907) discloses a vehicle structure, comprising:
a floor panel (60, FIG.7) that configures a floor surface of a vehicle cabin;
a cross member (62, FIG.7) that is provided on the floor panel and that extends in a vehicle width direction;
a seat rail that includes
a lower rail (24, FIG.2), which is provided on the cross member, and
an upper rail (22, FG.2), which is supported so as to be slidable in a vehicle front-rear direction with respect to the lower rail, and that supports a vehicle seat; and
PNG
media_image1.png
353
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an extension rail (26, FIG.7) that is disposed at a vehicle width direction outer side of the seat rail, and that extends further toward a vehicle front side than the seat rail, the lower rail being engaged with the extension rail so as to be moveable in the vehicle front-rear direction.
Nakano lack only that the floor panel (60) is disposed above a battery.
Lee (2021/0387550) teaches the use of an electric vehicle having a floor panel (FIG.4), the floor panel disposed above a battery of the vehicle (FIG.4).
Lee further teaches a vehicle structure with a vehicle width direction end portion comprises a rocker (FIG.4) that extends in the vehicle front-rear direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
554
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the vehicle structure of Nakano with a battery as taught by Lee in order to allow the vehicle to be an electric or hybrid type vehicle for better gas mileage and lower environmental impact; and with a rocker in the width direction as taught by Lee in order to strengthen the vehicle structure especially against side impact.
For claim 2, Nakano, as modified, implicitly provides the extension rail is fixed indirectly to the rocker.
For claim 4, Lee further teaches the use of carpet (18) over the floor and cross member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided, over the cross member and extension rail of Nakano, a carpet as taught by Lee in order to improve the aesthetics of the vehicle structure.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (‘907), as modified above, and further in view of Nonaka et al. (2003/0127880).
The seat rail of Nakano, as modified, is shown as a driver seat and the particulars of the vehicle structure including an instrument panel and the relationship to the seat is not shown.
Nonaka et al. teach a vehicle structure having a seat and seat rails (30) where the seat is a passenger seat (at a passenger seat side) and the rails (30) are provided below an instrument panel (instrument panel body 6) (as seen in FIG.9).
PNG
media_image3.png
430
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided the seat rail and extension rail of Nakano, as modified, for use with a passenger seat as taught by Nonaka et al. and further to have provided the extension rail of Nakano, as modified, extending below an instrument, also taught by Nonaka et al. in order to allow for ease of entry for rear passengers.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the specific lock mechanism released when the seat is not in use (claim 3), in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Nakano, as modified above, provides the lower rail fixed to the cross member via a lock mechanism (claim 3) as seen at 43 in FIG.3 and additionally discusses the locked state of the lock mechanism but is silent on the locked state released when the vehicle seat is not in use. In Nakano, the lock mechanism is locked during a relaxed condition and released when a collision occurs.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights