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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2019/0061568 A1), hereinafter Hirata.
Regarding claim 1, Hirata discloses a vehicle seat to be mounted in a vehicle, the vehicle seat comprising:
a seat cushion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below); and
a seatback (seat back 18, fig. 1),
the seat cushion including, in an order from a rear side thereof along a front- rear direction of the vehicle:
a buttocks-support seat surface (hip support portion 14a, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) configured to support from below buttocks of an occupant sitting on the vehicle seat (Para. [0044], “[a]t a seat face of the seat cushion 14 are provided a hip support portion 14a which supports the buttocks of the occupant 100”; as shown in fig. 1); and
a thigh-support seat surface (thigh support portion 14b, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) configured to support from below thighs of the occupant (Para. [0044], “thigh support portion 14b which supports the femurs of the occupant 100 at a position located in front of the hip support portion 14a”; as shown in fig. 1),
the seatback including, in an order from a lower side thereof along an up- down direction of the vehicle:
a lumbar-region support surface (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) configured to support a lumbar region of the occupant (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below, the lumber-region is configured to support a lumbar region of the occupant 100); and
a thoracic-region support surface (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) configured to support a thoracic region of the occupant (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below, the thoracic-region is configured to support a thoracic region of the occupant 100),
the seat cushion and the seatback being arranged such that a hip angle formed by the buttocks-support seat surface and the lumbar-region support surface is 93° to 101° (Para. [0080], “[t]he appropriate range of the hip's angle C is generally within a range from 90 degrees to 110 degrees, for example”. Examiner notes, 93° to 101° is in the disclosed range).
Hirata is silent to the seatback being formed such that a neck angle formed by the lumbar-region
support surface and the thoracic-region support surface is 17.4° to 24.2°.
Examiner notes, it reasonably could be construed that Hirata explicitly discloses a neck angle that is between the range of 17.4° to 24.2° from annotated figure 1 below. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Furthermore, MPEP 2125 states, “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirata such that the neck angle was in the range of 17.4° to 24.2° as suggested by Annotated fig. 1 of Hirata, since comfort is subjective and one skilled in the art would recognize this and modify Hirata to find the optimal angle for the vast majority of users. Furthermore, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Since finding the optimal range would directly affect a user’s comfort, and safety.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Hirata’s fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Hirata discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the
hip’s angle is generally within a range from 90 degrees to 110 degrees, but does not appear to specifically disclose that the hip angle is 97°, and the neck angle is 20.8°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hip’s angle such that it is 97° and the modify the neck angle such that it is 20.8°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Finding the optimal range would directly affect a user’s comfort, and safety. Furthermore, comfort is subjective, and one skilled in the art would recognize this and modify the seat of Hirata to find the optimal angle for the vast majority of users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights