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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, in figure 7, reference character “13” has been used to designate the “second magnet” of the “second fixing element”, when previously reference character “13” had been used to designate the “first magnet” of the “first fixing element”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 25 on page 7, “the magnets” are misnumbered as 12 and 14;
In lines 16 and 22 on page 9, “the headrest” is misnumbered as 8;
In lines 2, 7, and 14 on page 15, as well as in the Reference Number List For Figures, element number 24 is named “seat”, which could be confusing with the element number 1, also named “seat”. According to line 16 on page 16, this “seat 24” is called “a housing”. Naming element 24 as “the housing”, if intended to be the same as “seat 24”, would ensure clarity;
In the Reference Number List for Figures, as well as throughout the specification, it is advised that “fixing element” and “magnet” use the same names as claimed, those names being “first fixing element”, “second fixing element”, “first magnet”, and “second magnet”, to ensure clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 21-22 on page 2, “the two fixing elements (10, 11)” are better written out as “the first fixing element (10) and the second fixing element (11)” to avoid confusion among the various fixing elements claimed.
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 1-16 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:
In line 16 on page 1, it is unclear if “a fixing element (10)” is meant to be the same as “the first fixing element” from earlier in the same claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as “the first fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “a fixing element (10)” will be objected to for having the same element number;
In lines 18 and 21 on page 1, it is unclear if “the other fixing element (11)” is meant to be the same as the “second fixing element” from earlier in the same claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “second fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “the other fixing element (11)” will be objected to for having the same element number.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
In line 1 on page 2, it is unclear if “a fixing element (10)” is meant to be the same as either “the first fixing element” or “a fixing element (10)” of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as “the first fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “a fixing element (10)” will be objected to for having the same element number;
In line 3 on page 2, it is unclear if “the other fixing element (11) is meant to be the same as the “second fixing element” of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “second fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “the other fixing element (11)” will be objected to for having the same element number;
In lines 3 and 4 on page 2, “the other fixing element (11)” is claimed to comprise “two appendages (14)”. However, in claim 1, “the other fixing element (11)” is only claimed as comprising one appendage. It is unclear how it now comprises two appendages.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for depending on the clarity of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
In lines 6-7, 12, and 13 on page 2, it is unclear if “a fixing element (10)” is meant to be the same as either “the first fixing element” or “a fixing element (10)” of claim 1, or “a fixing element (10)” of claim 2. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as “the first fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “a fixing element (10)” would create a lack of clarity for having the same element number;
In lines 7-8, 12-13, and 14 on page 2, it is unclear if “the other fixing element (11) is meant to be the same as the “second fixing element” of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “second fixing element”. If this assumption is incorrect, “the other fixing element (11)” would create a lack of clarity for having the same element number;
In line 10 on page 2, “the other fixing element (11)” is claimed to comprise “two appendages (14)”. However, in claim 1, “the other fixing element (11)” is only claimed as comprising one appendage. It is unclear if these “two appendages” are that of the same as the one as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
In lines 15-16 on page 2, claim 4 states “the two first magnets (13)” when only one first magnet was claimed in claim 1. It is unclear if these “two first magnets” are that of the same as the one as claimed in claim 1;
In line 17, claim 4 states “the two second magnets” when only one second magnet was claimed in claim 1. It is unclear if these “two second magnets” are that of the same as the one as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
In line 17 on page 3, it is unclear how “the replaceable component is the headrest (4)” as claimed in claim 10, but a new “first replaceable component” is “consisting of the headrest (4)”. For examination purposes, “a first replaceable component” is assumed to be the same as “the replaceable component” of claim 10. If this assumption is incorrect, there will be a clarity issue as to whether or not the headrest of the “first replaceable component” is that of the same as the headrest of “the replaceable component”;
In line 19 on page 3, the second replaceable component can consist of “part of the backrest (3) and/or of the cushion (2)”. The second replaceable component can be both of, or either one of, the two. However, it is unclear if, when using the cushion as the second replaceable component, if it is meant to be part of, or the entirety of, the cushion. If it is meant to be part of the cushion, the limitation should read “part of the backrest (3) and/or part of the cushion (2)”.
Claim 12 is rejected for depending on the clarity of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12:
In line 21 on page 3, the use of “and/or” leads to a lack of clarity as “and/or” implies it could be one of the two listed components, but in lines 22-23 on page 3, in the same claim, the objects “are laterally arranged sides”. This means for there to two sides making up the second replaceable component, both parts would have to be in use, rather than one or the other;
In line 21 on page 3, the second replaceable component can consist of “part of the backrest (3) and/or of the cushion (2)”. The second replaceable component can be both of, or either one of, the two. However, it is unclear if, when using the cushion as the second replaceable component, if it is meant to be part of, or the entirety of, the cushion. If it is meant to be part of the cushion, the limitation should read “part of the backrest (3) and/or part of the cushion (2)”.
Regarding claim 13:
In line 25 on page 3, it is unclear if “a first interchangeable headrest (4) is meant to be the same as the “headrest” of claim 10. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “headrest” of claim 10. If this assumption is incorrect, “a first interchangeable headrest (4) would create a lack of clarity for having the same element number;
In line 2 on page 4, “a second interchangeable headrest (4)” has the same object number “(4)” as “the headrest” of claim 10, as well as the “first interchangeable headrest” from earlier in claim 13. Using the same object number leads to a lack of clarity as to whether or not the objects are meant to be the same. For examination purposes, it is assumed the objects are meant to be different and that the object number is an error;
In lines 4 and 5 on page 4, claim 13 states twice “the first headrest (4)”. It is unclear if this is the same as the “headrest” of claim 10, or the “first interchangeable headrest (4)” from earlier in claim 13. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “headrest” of claim 10. If this assumption is incorrect, “the first headrest (4)” would create a lack of clarity for having the same element number.
Claim 14 is rejected for depending on the clarity of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14:
In line 7 on page 4, “a third interchangeable headrest (4)” has the same object number “(4)” as “the headrest” of claim 10, the “first interchangeable headrest (4)” from claim 13, as well as the “second interchangeable headrest (4)” from claim 13. Using the same object number leads to a lack of clarity as to whether or not the objects are meant to be the same. For examination purposes, it is assumed the objects are meant to be different and that the object number is an error;
In lines 8-9 on page 4, claim 14 states “the first headrest (4)”. It is unclear if this is the same as the “headrest” of claim 10, or the “first interchangeable headrest (4)” from claim 13. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “headrest” of claim 10. If this assumption is incorrect, “the first headrest (4)” would create a lack of clarity for having the same element number;
In line 9 on page 4, it is unclear if “the second headrest” is meant to be the same as the “second interchangeable headrest” from claim 13. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same as the “second interchangeable headrest”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad (US-20180186260-A1) in view of Wittenschlaeger (US-11752902-B1).
Kondrad discloses a vehicle seat with a removable headrest bun. Wittenschlaeger discloses custom interchangeable seat bolsters.
Claim 1 – Kondrad teaches a seat of a vehicle (figure 1) comprising:
a base structure (element 10 in figure 1), which is rigid and is configured to be fixed to a floorboard of the vehicle (fixed to the floorboard of a vehicle via element 14 in figure 1); and
an upholstery (elements 12, 16, and 26), which is elastically deformable, at least partially covers the base structure and constitutes the outermost part of the seat that comes into contact with a body of a passenger of the seat (figure 1);
wherein the upholstery comprises a replaceable component (element 26 in figure 12B), which is fixed to the base structure in a separable manner by means of a coupling system (elements 370 and 400 in figures 12A and 12B) comprising a first fixing element (element 370 in figure 12A) integral to the base structure and a second fixing element (element 400 in figure 12B), which is configured to be coupled to the first fixing element and is integral to the replaceable component (figures 12C and 12D);
wherein a fixing element comprises at least one cavity (elements 374, 384, and 386 in figure 12A) and the other fixing element comprises an appendage (element 404 in figure 12B), which is shaped so as to be inserted into the cavity (element 374 in figure 12A).
Kondrad does not teach a first or second magnet, magnetically attracted to each other, arranged close to the cavities.
Wittenschlaeger teaches the detachable portions of the seat being fastened with magnets (in column 6, lines 4-8, “seat bolster may be detachably coupled to the frame using snap fasteners or other suitable fasteners (e.g., such as hook and loop fasteners, zippers, or magnetic fasteners, among others), to provide for rapid swap out”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic fasteners of Wittenschlaeger in the disclosure of Kondrad, placing a first magnet close to the cavity of the first fixing element and a second magnet, magnetically attracted to the first, close to the appendage of the second fixing element, for a more secure coupling of the two fixing elements.
Claim 2 – Kondrad teaches a fixing element comprises two cavities (elements 384 and 386 in figure 12A) arranged at a given distance from one another; and
the other fixing element comprises two appendages (elements 390 and 392 in figure 12A), which are designed to be inserted, together and at the same time, into both cavities (figure 12A).
Claim 3 – Kondrad does not teach a fixing element comprises a rotation hole and the other fixing element comprises a pin, which is located and shaped so as to be inserted into the rotation hole when the two appendages are inserted into the respective cavities, thus constituting a rotation constraint to rotate a fixing element relative to the other fixing element so as to separate a fixing element from the other fixing element.
Wittenschlaeger teaches a rotation hole and a pin, which is located and shaped so as to be inserted into the rotation hole, thus constituting a rotation constraint (in column 11, line 35, the fasteners, element 170, are explained as a “clevis pin”, and, in line 1 of the same column, element 180 is described as the respective openings for element 170, which constitutes a rotation constraint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a clevis pin and opening of Wittenschlaeger in the disclosure of Kondrad to as utilizing pins and holes are well known in the art to be used as coupling systems while allowing for a rotational constraint.
Claim 4 – Kondrad does not teach magnets, but Wittenschlaeger teaches the two first magnets have poles oriented in an opposite manner and, similarly, the two second magnets have poles oriented in an opposite manner (in column 6, lines 4-8, “seat bolster may be detachably coupled to the frame using snap fasteners or other suitable fasteners (e.g., such as hook and loop fasteners, zippers, or magnetic fasteners, among others), to provide for rapid swap out”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic fasteners of Wittenschlaeger in the disclosure of Kondrad, with poles oriented oppositely to ensure magnetic attraction, for a more secure coupling of the two fixing elements.
Claim 5 – Kondrad teaches the cavity is "U"-shaped and has an open side end (element 374 in figure 12A), through which the appendage (element 404 in figure 12B) can get out to uncouple the two fixing elements from one another (figures 12C and 12D).
Claims 6 and 8- Kondrad does not explicitly disclose that the appendage is inserted in an interlocking manner through an elastic deformation of part of the cavity.
The examiner takes Official Notice that providing an elastically deformable portion of a cavity, slot, or clip for a snap-fit, or to (with respect to claim 8) provide a cavity with an elastically deformable locking body (such as a resilient C-clip, ring, or spring arm) releasable retention is old and well known in the art. Such features are routinely used to allow an appendage or tab to be inserted and retained by the elastic flexing of the cavity walls or an integrated locking body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Kondrad’s fixing element to include an elastically deformable portion of the cavity (in addition to, or instead of, the spring detent), as this would be a routine design choice for providing or enhancing snap-fit retention, ease of assembly, or vibration resistance. The motivation is to provide robust and reliable retention, as is commonly desired in seating assemblies.
Claim 10 – Kondrad teaches the upholstery comprises a cushion (element 12 in figure 1), a backrest (element 16 in figure 1) and a headrest (element 26 in figure 1), which are separate from and independent of one another (figure 1); and
the replaceable component is the headrest (figure 12C).
Claim 11 – Kondrad teaches there is a first replaceable component consisting of the headrest (element 26 in figure 12C) but is silent on any further replaceable components.
Wittenschlaeger teaches a second replaceable component consisting of part of the backrest and/or of the cushion (elements 106 and 108 being parts of the backrest, and/or 104 being the cushion in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make part of the backrest and/or the cushion of Kondrad a second replaceable component, such as Wittenschlaeger teaches, to provide the user with greater customizability in comfort.
Claim 12 – Kondrad teaches the part of the backrest and/or of the cushion are laterally arranged sides (elements 12A and 12B or elements 16A and 16B in figure 1), but does not teach the part of the backrest and/or of the cushion making up the second replaceable component.
Wittenschlaeger teaches the part of the backrest and/or of the cushion making up the second replaceable component (elements 106 and 108 being parts of the backrest, and/or 104 being the cushion in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make part of the backrest and/or the cushion of Kondrad a second replaceable component, such as Wittenschlaeger teaches, to provide the user with greater customizability in comfort.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad (US-20180186260-A1) in view of Wittenschlaeger (US-11752902-B1), further in view of Bosen (US-10882432-B1).
Bosen discloses a modular vehicle seating system.
Claim 13 – Kondrad teaches a first interchangeable headrest (element 26 in figure 12C), but does not teach any further interchangeable headrests.
Bosen teaches a second interchangeable headrest (element 42 in figure 3), and teaches having multiple interchangeable headrests to change the thickness, stiffness, and support of the headrest (in column 3, lines 43-45, “properties [to vary between the interchangeable headrests] may include for example padding thickness, padding stiffness, and angle of the bolster”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when making the disclosure of Kondrad, to make various headrests, such as those in the disclosure of Bosen, to swap in and out for various applications with different thickness, stiffnesses, and supports to provide the user with the right level of comfort and support for their application.
Claim 14 – Kondrad teaches changing the headrest to allow for use with a helmet (in paragraph [0002], “a headrest assembly having adjustability features for accommodating specific race day requirements (i.e., helmets)”) but does not teach any further interchangeable headrests.
Bosen teaches a third interchangeable headrest, and teaches having multiple interchangeable headrests to change the thickness, stiffness, and support of the headrest (in column 3, lines 43-45, “properties [to vary between the interchangeable headrests] may include for example padding thickness, padding stiffness, and angle of the bolster”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when making the disclosure of Kondrad, to make various headrests, such as those in the disclosure of Bosen, to swap in and out for various applications with different thickness, stiffnesses, and supports to provide the user with the right level of comfort and support for their application.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondrad (US-20180186260-A1) in view of Wittenschlaeger (US-11752902-B1), further in view of Wang (CN-215705859-U).
Wang discloses a headrest detecting device for an automobile seat.
Claim 16 – Kondrad does not teach a detection system. Wang teaches a detection system (as claimed) provided with a reader device (figure 3), which is mounted on the base structure in the area of the replaceable component (figures 3 and 4) and is configured to check for the presence of the replaceable component (in claim 1, “when the controller only receives the second signal, the controller sends instruction, the alarm device prompts the seat headrest is not installed on the automobile seat”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vehicle seat of Kondrad with a detection system, as taught by Wang, to alert the user if a replaceable component is either not present or not secured prior to driving.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 and 15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights