DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/066,794 filed 2/28/2025 which claims priority to JAPAN 2024-032467 3/4/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-6 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
RE Claim 1: The term “fabric like” in claim 1 and throughout the claims is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “fabric like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
What does the claim phrase “nipped” in claim 3 mean?
Claims 2-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda et al. (US 20160009207 A1)(hereinafter Kuroda).
RE Claim 1: Kuroda discloses a blower protection structure of a seatback, comprising:
a pair of left and right lumbar wires (2B on left, 2B on right each with respective 10) spanning between an upper portion and a lower portion of a seatback frame (Fig 1) of a vehicle seat;
a blower (21) mounted directly or indirectly to the left and right lumbar wires (connection via seat); and
a fabric-like member (30) disposed at a seatback rear side with respect to the blower, and having a pair of left and right anchor portions (31a) anchored at the left and right lumbar wires (Fig 2).
RE Claim 2: Kuroda discloses the blower protection structure of a seatback of claim 1,
wherein the left and right anchor portions (31a) are a pair of left and right through holes (apertures) through which the left and right lumbar wires are inserted (10)(Fig 3).
RE Claim 3: Kuroda discloses the blower protection structure of a seatback of claim 1,
wherein the fabric-like member is nipped between the blower (21) and an upper bracket of the seatback frame (upper portion of the vehicle seat).
RE Claim 5: Kuroda discloses the blower protection structure of a seatback of claim 1,
wherein a harness protection portion (seatback), which covers, from the seatback rear side, a base portion of a harness of the blower, is provided at a lower portion of the fabric-like member (seatback).
RE Claim 6: Kuroda discloses a vehicle seat, comprising:
a seat cushion on which an occupant sits (passenger in a vehicle seat per abstract); and
a seatback supporting a back of the occupant (seatback discussed throughout)(see specifically abstract and para 0022),
wherein the seatback has the blower protection structure of a seatback of claim 1 (previously discussed).
Claim 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iacovone (US 10625643 B2)(hereinafter Iacovone).
RE Claim 1: Iacovone discloses a blower protection structure of a seatback, comprising:
a pair of left and right lumbar wires (22 on right and left) spanning between an upper portion and a lower portion of a seatback frame (Fig 1) of a vehicle seat;
a blower (56) mounted directly or indirectly to the left and right lumbar wires (Figs 1-2); and
a fabric-like member (50) disposed at a seatback rear side with respect to the blower, and having a pair of left and right anchor portions (Figs 1-2) anchored at the left and right lumbar wires (22).
RE Claim 4: Iacovone discloses the blower protection structure of a seatback of claim 1,
wherein an upper portion of the fabric-like member is formed such that, the further toward a seatback upper side, the narrower a seatback left-right direction dimension of the upper portion becomes (Fig 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various blower and seat arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights