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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US-20210221267-A1) alone.
Nagai discloses a vehicle seat device.
Claim 1 – Nagai teaches a vehicle seat structure comprising:
a seat back main frame (element 22 in figure 2) that is linked to an end portion of a seat cushion (element 12 in figure 1) at a seat rearward side; and
a seat back sub-frame (figure 3) that is linked by a plurality of wires to the seat back main frame (elements 66U and 66L in figure 4), such that movement in a seat front-rear direction is restricted, and also so as to be movable in a roll direction (from the abstract, “a lower support wire and an upper support wire that limit rearward movement of the SB subframe and allow movement of the SB subframe about the roll axis”), wherein the wires include a pair of upper-side support wires that is disposed on both sides in a seat width direction (element 66U in figure 4), on an upper side in a seat up-down direction, and that connects the seat back main frame and the seat back sub-frame in the seat front-rear direction while inclining toward an inner side in the seat width direction from the seat rearward side toward a seat forward side (figure 4), and a pair of lower-side support wires that is disposed on both sides in the seat width direction (element 66L in figure 4), on a lower side in the seat up-down direction, and that connects the seat back main frame and the seat back sub-frame in the seat front-rear direction while inclining toward the inner side in the seat width direction from the seat rearward side toward the seat forward side (figure 4).
Nagai does not teach a lower-side intersection point at which imaginary lines extending from the lower-side support wires toward the seat forward side intersect is situated on the seat forward side and also a seat upward side with respect to an upper-side intersection point at which imaginary lines extending from the upper-side support wires toward the seat forward side intersect, and
a straight line connecting the lower-side intersection point and the upper-side intersection point is situated on the seat rearward side from a steering wheel.
Nagai teaches a seat structure that is substantially the same as the claimed seat structure. If one were to draw imaginary lines, it would be the same. Nagai teaches, in paragraph [0040], that “the vehicle seat device 10 is mounted in a vehicle and is used as, for example, the driver’s seat”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a steering wheel in the same location and to place the vehicle seat of Nagai in reference to the steering wheel to provide the user with a comfortable driving experience, thus allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to draw the imaginary lines in the same manner with the same intersection points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nagai does not teach or suggest the specific intersection points of imaginary lines extending from the upper-side and lower-side support wires, nor the spatial relationship of the resulting straight line with respect to the steering wheel, as recited in the current claim. However, this argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The claim limitations regarding “imaginary lines” and their intersection points are defined only by the physical endpoints of the actual support wires. The claim does not specify any particular angle, length, or reference coordinate system for constructing these imaginary lines, only that they extend from the ends of the support wires “toward the seat forward side.” As a result, there is an infinite number of ways in which such imaginary lines could be drawn, depending on arbitrary choices of extension, reference points, or seat orientation.
Given that Nagai fully discloses the physical seat structure, including the arrangement and orientation of upper and lower support wires, any “imaginary” intersection points or straight lines derived from extending those wires are not new or separate features, they simply follow from the physical configuration already shown in Nagai. The only fixed points are the physical attachment points of the wires; the rest is a matter of geometric extension, which would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the claim recites only that the intersection points and the straight line “are situated” in certain positions relative to the steering wheel, but does not require any structural modification to the seat itself beyond what Nagai already discloses. As Nagai explicitly teaches a driver’s seat and the seat’s orientation relative to a steering wheel is a matter of routine vehicle design, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to position the seat and steering wheel as required for normal vehicle operation. In such a context, any notional or imaginary lines drawn from the disclosed wire ends would inherently intersect and form a straight line whose position relative to the steering wheel could be adjusted simply by seat placement, not by any change in seat structure.
Therefore, the limitations regarding imaginary intersection points and their spatial relationship to the steering wheel do not patentably distinguish over Nagai. These features are not structural and would be obvious conclusions when extending imaginary lines from the physically anticipated support wires of Nagai.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM 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, 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights