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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character
“125” has been used to designate both rear seat configuration and rear back seat
“130” has been used to designate both net and rear back seat
“135” has been used to designate both pivot and rear bottom seat
“150” has been used to designate both protrusion and seat pod
“200” has been used to designate both front seat and front seat back
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 130a and 130b. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 1, 5and 6 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second sentence of paragraph 0025 is awkward (“The rear seat may, for example, direction may, for example, intersect the direction of the rear backrest.”).
The fourth sentence of paragraph 0034 is awkward (“The vehicle 115 includes a seat pod 150 which is configured to reside under the font seat and includes configured to receive a lip of the rear seat when folded to support the foldable rear seat 125.”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, “a seating mode’ should be --in a seating mode--;
In claim 1, line 13, “a stowage mode’ should be --in a stowage mode--;
In claim 8, line 7, “a seating mode’ should be --in a seating mode--;
In claim 8, line 9, “a stowage mode’ should be --in a stowage mode--;
Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, it is unclear if the limitation “a plurality of intersecting …may rotate along a front pivot wherein” is part of the pair of configured front seat backs or another limitation.
For claim interpretation, this limitation is understood as a separate limitation not further limiting the pair of configured front seat backs.
It is suggested that the claim be presented as follows:
A configured seat back and rear seating system comprising:
a vehicle;
an affixed backrest extending along a longitudinal axis;
a pair of configured front seat backs comprising:
at least one speaker and air conditioning modules,
a central cup holder,
a top handle affixed to the rear of the front seats; and,
a plurality of intersecting multi-modal rear vehicle seat independently pivotally coupled along a front of the multi modal seats configured such that the rear of the plurality of the seats may rotate along a front pivot wherein:
in a seating mode the plurality of rear seats are configured such that the rear of the seat intersects the longitudinal axis of the affixed backrest; and,
in a stowage mode the plurality of rear seats are configured such that the at least one rear of the plurality of the rear vehicle seats are extended to couple to an extended rear portion of a front seat.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 2024/0174134) in view of Jeon (US 2023/0107332), Deng (CN 212604707), Tezuka (WO 2023/228960), Stevens (US 8,567,846) and Gilbeck (US 8,322.772).
Regarding claim 1, Saeki discloses a configured seat back and rear seating system comprising: a vehicle (1); an affixed backrest (33) extending along a longitudinal axis; a pair of configured front seat backs (29) and, a multi-modal rear vehicle seat (32) pivotally coupled along a front (Fig. 3) of the multi modal seat configured such that the rear of the seat may rotate along a front pivot wherein: in a seating mode the rear seats are configured such that the rear of the seat intersects the longitudinal axis of the affixed backrest (Fig. 2); and, in a stowage mode the seats are configured such that the at least one rear (61) of the plurality of the rear vehicle seats are extended to support the seat (Fig. 3).
Saeki does not disclose that the pair of configured front seat backs (29) comprises: at least one speaker and air conditioning modules, a central cup holder, a top handle affixed to the rear of the front seats. Saeki further does not disclose that the rear seat is a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal.
Saeki discloses a support structure (61) on the rear seat structure which engages with a separate part of the vehicle. Saeki does not disclose that the rear vehicle seats are extended to couple to an extended rear portion of a front seat.
Regarding the at least one speaker and air conditioning modules, cup holder and top handle, Jeon discloses that it is known to include a top handle, net storage and cup holder on a seat back. Further, Deng discloses that it is known to include a cup holder, storage compartment and charging port on a seat back. Tezuka discloses that it is known to include speakers in a seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include at least one speaker and air conditioning modules, a central cup holder, a top handle, a mesh storage (claim 6) and charging ports (claim 7) affixed to the rear of the front seats. The rationale would have been that they are known structures for providing comfort to passengers in a vehicle.
Regarding the limitation that the rear seat is a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal, Stevens discloses a utility vehicle in which the rear seat comprises a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date to make the rear seat as a plurality of independently pivotal seats. The motivation would have been to allow a rear passenger and storage.
Saeki discloses a support structure (61) on the rear seat structure which engages with a separate part of the vehicle. Saeki does not disclose that the rear vehicle seats are extended to couple to an extended rear portion of a front seat. Gilbeck disclose a folding seat structure for a utility vehicle in which a portion (144) of the folding section engages with a protrusion (145) for the front seat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to support the folding seat structure with compatible latching structures to more securely support the rear seat in the stowage mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jeon, Deng, Tezuka, Stevens and Gilbeck with Saeki to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 7 and 6.
Regarding claim 2, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 1. Saeki further discloses structure for preventing the stowed items from being displaced from the stowage platform. Saeki discloses in Fig. 18 discloses a protruding flange (67), Fig. 19 discloses a railing (125) and inserting fixtures (127) and Fig. 20 discloses bins (131). While Saeki does not disclose two opposing nets configured to extend along the exterior rear seat to the rear of the front seat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that nets would have been an know alternative to prevent the items on the stowage platform from falling off of the vehicle during transport.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Saeki disclose an electric vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date that the electric vehicle could have been a golf cart or an all terrain vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 1. Saeki further discloses that the vehicle comprises a canopy (19) supported by a series of struts (14,15) coupled to the vehicle.
Claims 8, 12-16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 2024/0174134) in view of Stevens (US 8,567,846)
Regarding claim 8, Saeki discloses a configured seat back and rear seating system comprising: a vehicle (1); an affixed backrest (33) extending along a longitudinal axis; and, a multi-modal rear vehicle seat (32) pivotally coupled along a front (Fig. 3) of the multi modal seat configured such that the rear of the seat may rotate along a front pivot wherein: in a seating mode the rear seats are configured such that the rear of the seat intersects the longitudinal axis of the affixed backrest (Fig. 2); and, in a stowage mode the seats are configured such that the at least one rear (61) of the plurality of the rear vehicle seats are extended to support the seat (Fig. 3).
Saeki does not disclose that the rear seat is a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal.
Regarding the limitation that the rear seat is a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal, Stevens discloses a utility vehicle in which the rear seat comprises a plurality of seats which are independently pivotal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date to make the rear seat as a plurality of independently pivotal seats. The motivation would have been to allow a rear passenger and storage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stevens with Saeki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 1. Saeki further discloses structure for preventing the stowed items from being displaced from the stowage platform. Saeki discloses in Fig. 18 discloses a protruding flange (67), Fig. 19 discloses a railing (125) and inserting fixtures (127) and Fig. 20 discloses bins (131). While Saeki does not disclose two opposing nets configured to extend along the exterior rear seat to the rear of the front seat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that nets would have been an know alternative to prevent the items on the stowage platform from falling off of the vehicle during transport.
Regarding claim 13, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 1. Saeki further discloses that the vehicle comprises a canopy (19) supported by a series of struts (14,15) coupled to the vehicle.
Regarding claims 14-16, Saeki disclose an electric vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date that the electric vehicle could have been a golf cart or an all terrain vehicle.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 8. Saeki further discloses at paragraph 0114 that the pivot could be one hinge or a plurality of hinges.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Stevens as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tezuka.
Regarding claim 9, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 8.
Saeki does not disclose that the pair of configured front seat backs (29) comprises: at least one speaker and air conditioning modules.
Tezuka discloses that it is known to include speakers in a seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include at least one speaker and air conditioning modules. The rationale would have been that they are known structures for providing comfort to passengers in a vehicle.
Claims 10 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Stevens as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeon or Deng.
Saeki does not disclose that the pair of configured front seat backs (29) comprises: at a central cup holder, a top handle affixed to the rear of the front seats.
Jeon discloses that it is known to include a top handle (claim 11), net storage and cup holder (claim 10) on a seat back. Further, Deng discloses that it is known to include a cup holder (claim 10), storage compartment and charging port on a seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include a central cup holder and a top handle affixed to the rear of the front seats. The rationale would have been that they are known structures for providing comfort to passengers in a vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Stevens as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gilbeck.
Regarding claim 17, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 8. Saeki further discloses a front seat with an adjustable seat bottom (Figs. 27, 35-37).
Saeki discloses a support structure (61) on the rear seat structure which engages with a separate part of the vehicle. Saeki does not disclose that the rear vehicle seats are extended to couple to an extended rear portion of a front seat. Gilbeck disclose a folding seat structure for a utility vehicle in which a portion (144) of the folding section engages with a protrusion (145) for the front seat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to support the folding seat structure with compatible latching structures to more securely support the rear seat in the stowage mode.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Stevens as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hirooka (US 2016/0090057).
Regarding claim 17, Saeki as modified discloses the configured seat back and rear seating system of claim 8.
Saeki does not disclose a hinged trunk with an affixed tether.
Hirooka discloses a utility vehicle with a hinged trunk and tether (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date to include hinged trunk as taught by Hirooka on the vehicle of Saeki. The motivation would have been to make loading the stowage items onto the platform easy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 pm.
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, Fenn Matthew can be reached at 571-272-4978. 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.
/PATRICIA L ENGLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights