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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first portion” and the “second portion” in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 4-7 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 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 4, lines 4-5 recite “the first portion is positioned in the rear of the vehicle seat with respect to the second portion” which is indefinite, because it is unclear from the specification and drawings what the scope of the arrangement of the first and second portions consist of. The blower device assembly is positioned in front of the seat frame, so it is unclear how the first portion is positioned in the rear of the vehicle seat with respect to the second portion.
Claims 5-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 4 as rejected above.
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, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okimura et al. (US 2019/0241102 A1), hereinafter Okimura.
Regarding claim 1, Okimura discloses a vehicle seat to be installed to a vehicle, the vehicle seat comprising:
a blower device (blower 20, fig. 10);
a bracket supporting the blower device (cover member 50, as shown in figs. 7, and 9-11);
a seat frame supporting the bracket (as shown in figs. 7 & 11, the upper side frames 13A are supporting the cover member 50);
a first cable (first cable 81, fig. 10) connected to the blower device (as shown in fig. 10, first cable 81 extends out from the blower 20); and
a second cable (second cable 82, fig. 10) configured to connect the first cable (as shown in fig. 10, the second cable 82 is connected to the first cable 81) and an electrical wiring of the vehicle (fig. 10), wherein
the bracket includes a first support portion (hooks 56, fig. 10) and a second support portion (engagement portion 55, fig. 10) supporting the second cable (Para. [0107], “[t]he second cable 82 extends to the right side from its connector 81A side end portion, and is then folded to make a 180-degree turn (U-shaped turn) and routed to the left side with the respective locking members 82B engaged with the corresponding engagement portions 55 (not shown)”; as shown in fig. 10).
Okimura does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first portion supports
the first cable.
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 invention of Okimura such that the first support portion (i.e., hooks 56) support the first cable in order to provide a secure, organized, and safe cable management that prevents damage, improves accessibility, and reduces hazards.
Regarding claim 2, Okimura discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein
the bracket (cover member 50, fig. 7) is provided with, on a back surface thereof facing rearward of the vehicle seat (as shown in figs. 10-11, the cover member 50 is provided on a back surface facing rearward of the vehicle seat), a fixing portion fixed to the seat frame (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below), and a reinforcing rib (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below), and
the rib is provided in a plurality of types having different lengths in a front-rear direction of the vehicle seat (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Okimura’s fig. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
390
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2: annotated image of Okimura’s fig. 10
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Okimura discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein
the bracket includes a first portion (main body 51, fig. 10) and a second portion (back surface of 51, fig. 10) that are positioned differently from each other in a front-rear direction of the vehicle seat (figs. 10-11),
the first portion is positioned in the rear of the vehicle seat with respect to the second portion (figs. 10-11), and
the first support portion (hooks 56, fig. 10) and the second support portion (engagement portions 55, fig. 10) are provided in the first portion (the hooks 56 and the engagement portions 55 are provided in main body 51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see PTO 892.
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