Detailed Action1
Election/Restriction
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 2-8, in the reply filed on July 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 3-4 and 6-7 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the side wall in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation.
Claims 3 and 4 recite direction of a seat when claiming structure of the frame. This makes it confusing as to whether a seat is required to infringe the claim, or if merely a seat back frame is required. The examiner recommends changing “a seat” to “the seat back frame”.
Claim 6 recites the side frame in line 2. It is unclear if this is referring to the pair of side frame previously introduced, or is referring to one of the pair of side frames. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “the at least one of the pair of side frames”.
Claim 7 is rejected for depending from claim 6.
Rejections under 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2013/0187417 (“Seo”).
Regarding claim 2, Seo discloses a seat back frame (100) (fig. 3, paras. [0001] & [0058]), comprising: a pair of side frames (101) (fig. 3, para. [0058]), and a connecting frame (102c) interconnecting the pair of the side frames (fig. 3, para. [0058]), wherein at least one of the pair of the side frames is provided with a bulging portion that bulges forward (figs. 3-4, wherein the bottom of the side frames bulge forward more than the top), and a side frame piece (101a or 101b) that forms a closed section on an inner side of the side frame (fig. 5, para. [0071], wherein two pieces 101a & 101b cooperate to form a hollow that is closed at least in cross-section).
Claim 2 further recites the side frame piece is disposed below an upper end of the connecting frame and above a maximum bulging point of the bulging portion. As illustrated in fig. 3 of Seo, the side frame pieces 101a or 101b are both partially disposed below an upper end of the connecting frame and above a maximum bulging point since the side frame pieces extend the length of the side frame.
Claim 3 recites the side wall of the side frame is provided with a bead extending in a front to back direction of a seat, and wherein the side frame piece is disposed above the bead. As illustrated in figs. 3, 4a & 4c of Seo, a side wall of the side frame comprises beads 110 extending in the front to back direction. In addition, the side frame pieces 101a or 101b are both partially disposed above the beads since the side frame pieces extend the length of the side frame.
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2015/0321614 (“Line”).
Regarding claim 2, Line discloses a seat back frame (150) (fig. 3, para. [0028]), comprising: a pair of side frames (154/158) (fig. 3, para. [0028]), and a connecting frame (162) interconnecting the pair of the side frames (fig. 3, para. [0028]), wherein at least one of the pair of the side frames is provided with a bulging portion that bulges forward (figs. 3, wherein the bottom of the side frames bulge forward more than the top), and a side frame piece that forms a closed section on an inner side of the side frame (fig. 10, wherein the cross-section of the side frames 154/158 in figure 10 illustrate each side frame having two pieces that cooperate to form two hollows that are closed at least in cross-section).
Claim 2 further recites the side frame piece is disposed below an upper end of the connecting frame and above a maximum bulging point of the bulging portion. As illustrated in fig. 3 of Line, at least one of the side frame pieces is partially disposed below an upper end of the connecting frame and above a maximum bulging point since the side frame extends between the connecting frame and the bulge.
Claim 5 recites a recess that is recessed rearward is formed in a center of the connecting frame in a seat width direction, and wherein the side frame piece is disposed on an outer side of the recess in the seat width direction. As illustrated in fig. 3 of Line, the ends of the connecting frame 162 in the width direction extend forward from the middle section of the frame 162. Thus, the central portion of the connecting frame 162 is recessed rearward. In addition, at least one of the side frame pieces is disposed on an outer side of the recess with respect to the seat width direction since the side frames connect to the ends of the connecting frame (see fig. 3).
Claim 6 recites the side frame has a first rear wall extending toward an inner side in a seat width direction, wherein the side frame piece has a second rear wall extending toward an inner side in the seat width direction, and wherein the second rear wall of the side frame piece overlaps the first rear wall of the side frame. This is taught by Line as illustrated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the side frames comprise first and second pieces with first and second rear walls that extend inwards in a seat width direction and that partially overlap each other.
Claim 7 recites the side frame piece has a bent portion between the second rear wall and a front end of the side frame piece. The side frame piece has multiple bent portions between the front side and the second rear wall. One of them is illustrated in the rejection to claim 6, above.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2018/0037147 (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 4, Seo fails to explicitly teach a through hole is formed in the connecting frame that passes through in a front to back direction of a seat, and wherein a vertical length of the side frame piece is longer than a vertical length of the through hole. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tanaka.
Tanaka also teaches a seat back frame having a pair of side frames 3/5 connected by a top connecting frame 7 (fig. 1, paras. [0002] & [0056]). The top connecting frame 7 comprises a central elongated through-hole 7D that passes through in a front to back direction of the seat (figs. 1-2, para. [0065]).
In this case, each of Seo and Tanaka teach a seat back frame having a pair of side frames connected by a top connecting frame. While Seo appears to have a central elongated through hole on the front face of the connecting frame (see fig. 3 of Seo), it is a little ambiguous. Tanaka teaches that it is known for seat frames to have elongated central through holes on the front face of the top connecting frame that pass through a front to back direction of the seat. Thus, it would be predictable that the seat of Seo can function as intended if the central elongated hole were a through hole. As such, it would be obvious to modify the central elongated hole on the front face of the top connecting frame of Seo to be a through hole that passes through a front to back direction of the seat.
In addition, as illustrated in fig. 3 of Seo, the side frame pieces have a greater vertical length than the through hole.
Regarding claim 5, Seo fails to explicitly teach a recess that is recessed rearward is formed in a center of the connecting frame in a seat width direction, and wherein the side frame piece is disposed on an outer side of the recess in the seat width direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tanaka.
Tanaka also teaches a seat back frame having a pair of side frames 3/5 connected by a top connecting frame 7 (fig. 1, paras. [0002] & [0056]). The top connecting frame 7 comprises a ends that extend forward from a central recessed portion (fig. 1).
In this case, each of Seo and Tanaka teach a seat back frame having a pair of side frames connected by a top connecting frame. While Seo appears to have ends that extend forward from a recessed central portion (see fig. 3 of Seo), it is a little ambiguous. Tanaka teaches that it is known for the top connecting frame to have ends in the seat width direction that extend forward from a central recessed portion. Thus, it would be predictable that the seat of Seo can function as intended if the ends of the top connecting frame extended forward from a central recessed portion. As such, it would be obvious to modify the connecting frame of Seo so that the ends in the seat width direction extend forward, thereby defining a central recessed portion that is recessed rearward from the ends.
Given the above modification, at least one of the side frame pieces is disposed on an outer side of the recess with respect to the seat width direction since the side frames connect to the ends of the connecting frame (see fig. 3 of Seo; see also fig. 1 of Tanaka).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2004/0227389 (“Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 4, Line fails to explicitly teach a through hole is formed in the connecting frame that passes through in a front to back direction of a seat, and wherein a vertical length of the side frame piece is longer than a vertical length of the through hole. However, this would have been obvious in view of Yoshida.
Yoshida also teaches a seat back frame having a pair of side frames 1/2 connected by a top connecting frame 3/3a (fig. 1, para. [0032]). The top connecting frame comprises a central elongated through-hole 33 that passes through in a front to back direction of the seat (figs. 1 & 3, para. [0039]).
In this case, each of Line and Yoshida teach a seat back frame having a pair of side frames connected by a top connecting frame. While Line appears to have a central elongated through hole on the front face of the connecting frame (see fig. 3 of Line), it is a little ambiguous. Yoshida teaches that it is known for seat frames to have elongated central through holes on the front face of the top connecting frame that passes through a front to back direction of the seat. Thus, it would be predictable that the seat of Line can function as intended if the central elongated hole were a through hole. As such, it would be obvious to modify the central elongated hole on the front face of the top connecting frame of Line to be a through hole that passes through a front to back direction of the seat.
In addition, as illustrated in fig. 3 of Line, the side frame piece has a greater vertical length than the through hole.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2014/0375098 (“Kitou”).
Regarding claim 8, Seo fails to explicitly teach the connecting frame has a pillar guide holding a headrest pillar, and wherein the side frame piece is disposed on an outer side of the pillar guide in a seat width direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kitou.
Kitou teaches to connect a headrest having headrest pillars 8a to the top connecting frame by inserting the headrest pillars into tubular guides HM of the top connecting frame.
In this case, each of Seo and Kitou are directed to a seat back frame having a pair of side frames connected by a top connecting frame. One of skill in the art would likely believe that a headrest is connected to the top connecting frame of Seo by inserting pillars of the headrest into the openings on the top of the connecting frame 102c (see fig. 3 of Seo)—however Seo fails to explicitly mention a head rest. Kitou teaches one of skill in the art that it is known to attach a headrest to the connecting frame by inserting headrest pillars into tubular openings on a top of the connecting frame. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Seo so that a headrest having pillars is attached to the connecting frame by inserting the pillars into tubular guides/openings on a top of the connecting frame.
In addition, at least one of the side frame pieces is disposed on an outer side of the pillar guide with respect to the seat width direction since the side frames connect to the ends of the connecting frame (see fig. 3 of Seo).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2012/0306250 (“the ‘250 reference”).
Regarding claim 8, Line fails to explicitly teach the connecting frame has a pillar guide holding a headrest pillar, and wherein the side frame piece is disposed on an outer side of the pillar guide in a seat width direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of the ‘250 reference.
The ‘250 reference teaches a similar seat and seat frame as Line (see figs. 4-5 of the ‘250 reference). The ‘250 reference teaches the top connecting frame to comprise apertures 56 adapted to receive guide sleeves that in turn receive headrest posts that extend downwardly from the headrest 32 (figs. 2-5, para. [0032]).
In this case, each of Line and the ‘250 reference are directed to a seat back frame having a pair of side frames connected by a top connecting frame. Line teaches the connecting frame to support a headrest (fig. 3, para. [0028]), however, it is unclear how the headrest is supported by the frame. The ‘250 reference teaches that it is predictable to guide and support pillars of a headrest by providing apertures in the top of the connecting frame that receive guide sleeves. Since the connecting frame of Line illustrates the top of the connecting frame having apertures, it would be obvious and predictable to modify Line so that a headrest having pillars is attached to the connecting frame by inserting the pillars into guide sleeves within apertures on a top of the connecting frame.
In addition, at least one of the side frame pieces is disposed on an outer side of the pillar guide with respect to the seat width direction since the side frames connect to the ends of the connecting frame (see fig. 3 of Line).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”