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 .
Specification
It is requested that Applicant review the specification to amend any awkward translations from the original foreign application. The title in particular seems to suffer from this (perhaps simply “Air Supply Device” or “Air Supply Device for a Seat” would be more appropriate.
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 2-8 and 10 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 2 recites the limitations "the upper surface," “the air supply outlet,” and “the rear edge.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the bottom plate,” “the opening,” “the bottom of the seat frame,” “the upper part,” and “the top.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the front side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claims 4-8 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneno et al. (US Patent Number 7581584).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneno discloses an air supply device, characterized by comprising a seat body (see at least Figure 1) and an air supply component (including 50, 51, 53, etc.); the seat body includes a seat frame, which has a box-like structure, forming a cavity inside (see again at least Figure 1), wherein the air supply component is installed within the cavity of the seat frame.
Regarding claim 2, Yoneno further discloses the upper surface of the seat frame is equipped with a backrest, and the air supply outlet located at the rear edge of the upper surface of the seat frame is positioned behind the backrest (see again Figure 1 showing an air supply outlet at 53 positioned as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Yoneno further discloses the air supply component includes a housing (formed at least by 53) and a fan (of 50); the bottom plate of the housing is situated at the opening of the bottom of the seat frame (portions of 53 form such an arrangement), and the bottom plate of the housing is equipped with an air inlet (at least of/at 50); the fan is positioned in the upper part of the housing (at least generally); the top of the housing is open, serving as an air outlet (at upper portions of 53).
Regarding claim 4, Yoneno further discloses a filter (of 51, which is disclosed as including a ceramic filter arrangement) is arranged within the housing, located below the fan (at least in part and/or based on perspective).
Regarding claim 9, Yoneno further discloses a perforated plate is horizontally arranged within the seat frame, positioned above the air supply component (the upper surface of the seat forms such an arrangement).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno in view of Andrix et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0135490). Yoneno discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose a vibration-damping device. Andrix discloses a related device including a vibration-damping device installed within a housing (see paragraph 51). 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 vibration-damping device as taught by Andrix in Yoneno’s device because this could improve alignment as well as user comfort and enjoyment. Note that while the combination is viewed as providing the elements arranged as claimed (i.e. vibration-damping device below the filter) based on the arrangement of the reference devices, even if this were not clear, 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 arrange the components as claimed based on normal variation to improve manufacture, packaging, and comfort for various users.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno.
Regarding claim 6, Yoneno discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose details about housing shape. Changes in component shape require 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 concave curve on the bottom plate based on normal variation to improve function, fit, and comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 7, Yoneno discloses a device as explained above and further discloses a partition (of or at 53 for instance; see Figure 1) is horizontally arranged within the seat frame, dividing the cavity inside the seat frame into an upper first cavity and a lower second cavity (see figures); the bottom plate of the housing is positioned at the bottom of the second cavity (at least generally), while the top of the housing extends through the partition into the first cavity (53 extends upward in this manner), but does not disclose a circuit board and battery arrangement and may not clearly disclose the components located as claimed. DC circuit boards controlling power to a fan from a battery within a box and having a charging port are old and well-known. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such an arrangement to power Yoneno’s device because this is a simple, cheap, and versatile arrangement commonly implemented to ensure proper operation and user convenience. Regarding the arrangement of components, 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 arrange the components as claimed based on normal variation to improve manufacture, packaging, and comfort for various users
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno in view of Van Doornewaard et al. (US Patent Number 11779127). Yoneno, modified as explained above, discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose sound-absorbing material. Van Doornewaard discloses a related device including sound-absorbing material laid on inner surfaces (see at least the third full paragraph of column 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide sound-absorbing material as taught by Van Doornewaard in Yoneno’s device as previously modified because this could improve user comfort and enjoyment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneno in view of Choi (US Patent Number 6826789). Yoneno discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose a heating plate. Choi discloses a related device including an electric radiation heating plate (10) arranged on a front side of a seat frame. 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 heating plate as taught by Choi in Yoneno’s device because this could improve user comfort and enjoyment.
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 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