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 .
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirokane (US 9994129 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shirokane teaches a locking device of a seat back, comprising: a hinge pin (54) installed in a case (34); a first latch part (38) rotatably installed through the hinge pin with respect to the case and having a fork (60) for coupling to a striker (30); a second latch part (40) rotatably installed through the hinge pin with respect to the case and having a restraint (66) for preventing a flow of the striker; an interlocking structure (96, 98) for an interlock behavior between the first latch part and the second latch part; a first return spring (56) configured to provide a restorative force in a locking direction with respect to the first latch part; and a second return spring (64) configured to provide a restorative force in a locking direction with respect to the second latch part, wherein the restraint (66) is formed to have an inclined structure toward an opening of the fork (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Shirokane teaches the locking device of claim 1, wherein the interlocking structure includes: an interlocking pin (96) installed in the first latch part; and a pin slot (98) provided in the second latch part and configured to movably accommodate the interlocking pin therein.
Regarding claim 3, Shirokane teaches the locking device of claim 2, wherein the pin slot (98) is disposed along a trajectory having a circular arc shape set about the hinge pin (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Shirokane teaches the locking device of claim 2, wherein the case includes: a hinge hole (hole for pin 54) hingedly coupled to the hinge pin; and a release slot (open backside of case 34) movably accommodating the interlocking pin therein, and wherein the interlocking pin is installed to pass through the pin slot and the release slot and to be exposed outside the case (the release slot is being interpreted as the open back side of the case so once the pin is installed it passes through this slot and is open to the outside of the case).
Regarding claim 5, Shirokane teaches the locking device of claim 4, wherein the release slot is disposed along a trajectory having a circular arc shape set about the hinge pin (the perimeter of the case has an arc shape), and wherein a length of the release slot is set to be longer than a length of the pin slot (the slot is longer than the pin slot because it is the entire open back).
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) 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirokane (US 9994129 B1) in view of Beenen (US 20190092192 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Shirokane teaches the locking device of claim 4, wherein the case further includes: a first spring support (outer edge of pin 54) for installing the first return spring;
Shirokane does not explicitly teach a guide configured to guide a strap fixed to the interlocking pin.
Beenen teaches a similar motor vehicle seat latch mechanism having a strap connected to a release mechanism and utilizing a guide (5) configured to guide the strap (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Shirokane with those of Beenen in order to utilize a strap guide in order to guide a release strap to the locking mechanism. By utilizing a guide and a strap to connect to the release mechanism a reliable secondary release mechanism is provided. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding claim 7, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 6, Shirokane further teaches wherein the first latch part includes: a first hinge hole (hole for 54) hingedly coupled to the hinge pin; and a pin hole (hole to receive 96) for installing the interlocking pin.
Regarding claim 8, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 7, Shirokane further teaches wherein the first latch part further includes: a spring inserting portion (raised edge around hole for 54 which supports spring 56) for coupling to the first return spring; and a second spring support (edge which contacts 64) for installing the second return spring.
Regarding claim 9, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 8, Shirokane further teaches wherein the first latch part further includes a partition wall (lower wall which catches leg of 64) for supporting the second return spring.
Regarding claim 10, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 8, Shirokane further teaches wherein the first return spring (56) is configured as a torsion spring of which a body thereof is fixed to the first spring support (fixed around 54), and has one end coupled to the spring inserting portion (raised edge to hold leg) and another end supported on a reinforcement of the case (opposite end contacts case to provide force).
Regarding claim 11, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 9, Shirokane further teaches wherein the second latch part includes: a second hinge hole (hole for 54) hingedly coupled to the hinge pin; and a protrusion (94) for contacting the second return spring.
Regarding claim 12, Shirokane in view of Beenen teaches the locking device of claim 11, Shirokane further teaches wherein the second return spring (64) is configured as a torsion spring of which a body thereof is fixed to the second spring support, and has one end coupled to the partition wall of the first latch part and another end supported on the protrusion of the second latch part (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirokane (US 9994129 B1) in view of Beenen (US 20190092192 A1) as applied to claims 6-12 above, and further in view of Sayama (US 9346374) .
Regarding claim 13, Shirokane in view of Beenen teach the locking device of claim 8, however does not explicitly teach wherein the first latch part is configured with a body made of a metal material, and a cushion made of a cushioning material, and wherein the second spring support is provided in the cushion.
Sayama teaches a similar locking device utilizing a metal latch component covered in a resin material to provide a cushioning element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Shirokane and Beenen with those of Sayama in order to include a cushioning element over a metal body for the latch components. The metal body provides ample strength for the latch components while the resin coating provides cushioning to prevent noise as identified by Sayama. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights