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.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Element 46 in figure 4;
Elements 21, 22, 21” and 22” in figures 8 and 9; and
Element 64 in figure 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 also objected to because:
In figure 6, there are multiple arrows pointing to various elements but do not have an element number associated with them.
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:
In paragraphs [0032] and [0033], “armrest” is labeled as element 32, when other instances in the disclosure have “armrest” labeled as element 45;
In paragraph [0061], “the support beam” is labeled as element 38, when other instances in the disclosure have “the support beam” labeled as element 36;
Throughout the specification, element 51 is used to designate a power cable and a row of seating. The issue is present throughout the figures as well;
Throughout the specification, element 52 is used to designate a junction box, a power distribution box, and a row of seating. This issue is present throughout the figures as well; and
Throughout the specification, element 54 is used to designate both a power cable and a row of seating. This issue is present throughout the figures as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 29 invokes 112(f) because the limitations “power input means for receiving mains power” in line 9, “power distribution means for supplying DC power to each seat” in line 10, and “data transmission means for connecting data cables between each seat to create a daisy-chained data connection” in lines 11-12 each meet the three-pong test above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not describe, in sufficient detail, what are the “modular cables” of claims 9 and 12. Paragraph [0066] is the only instance of “modular cables” being mentioned. The phrase “modular cables” is stated in the third sentence of the paragraph, without a definition of what they are or if they related to the previously mentioned “cables”. The statement “as the cables are modular” is stated in the fourth sentence of the paragraph, however this does not define what the modular cables are, or if it is referring to all cables being the modular cables, or the modular cables being cables which are modular.
The specification does not describe, in sufficient detail, what is the “housing” of claim 9. A “housing” does not appear in the specification. The closest mention in the specification to such a structure is, in paragraph [0063], “other topologies could be accommodated in the system, housed in the channels or ports”. This is not the same as the “housing” that is claimed. It does not mention a “seating rail engagement structure” being integrated into the housing, it does not mention a “cover cap” for the cavity of the housing for closure and servicing. The only mention of a cover cap is for closure and servicing of the junction boxes. The housing cannot be interpreted as the same as the junction boxes because junction boxes are claimed as a different element in the line prior to the claiming of the housing.
The specification does not describe, in sufficient detail, a “connection block”. “Electrical connections” are discussed throughout the disclosure, however a “connection block” does not appear. There is no disclosure of what the “connection block” is, how it is constructed, or how one is implemented.
The specification also does not describe, in sufficient detail, what are the “first set of modular cables”, the “second set of modular cables”, or the “third set of modular cables” of claim 9. There is no instance of any “set” of any cable in the specification, and therefore, no disclosure of what the “sets of modular cables” comprise or how they are constructed.
Claims 1-32 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.
Regarding claim 1:
In line 5, it is unclear if “one seat and/or backrest” is one seat of the plurality of seats and backrests and/or one backrest of the plurality of seats and backrests, or one entirely different seat and/or backrest;
In line 6, it is unclear if “each adjacent pair of side armrest assemblies” are of the plurality of side armrest assemblies or different pairs of side armrest assemblies;
In line 7, it is unclear if “at least one side armrest assembly” is of the plurality of side armrest assemblies or an entirely different side armrest assembly;
In lines 7 and 10, it is unclear if “the seat and/or backrest” is the same as the “one seat and/or backrest” of line 5;
In lines 8 and 9, it is unclear what is meant by “free play adjustment”;
In lines 9-10, it is unclear if “the seat and backrest” is the same as the “one seat and/or backrest”, from the plurality of seats and backrests, or an entirely different seat and backrest; and
In lines 10 and 11, it is unclear if “the side armrest assembly” is the same as the at least one side armrest assembly, from the plurality of side armrest assemblies, or an entirely different side armrest assembly.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 25 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
In line 1, it is unclear what is meant by “free play adjustment”; and
In line 2, it is unclear if “plus or minus 5 mm to 20 mm” is a total range, being “about or around 5 mm to 20 mm”, or just a deviation from a nominal position, being left or right movement.
Regarding claim 3:
In line 1, it is unclear what is meant by “free play adjustment”;
In line 2, it is unclear if “the side armrest assembly” is the same as the at least one side armrest assembly from claim 1, from the plurality of side armrest assemblies, or an entirely different side armrest assembly; and
In lines 2-3, it is unclear if “the seat and/or backrest” is the same as the one seat and/or backrest of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “free play adjustment”.
Regarding claim 9:
In line 3, it is unclear if “each port” is the same as the plurality of elongate ports or an entirely different port;
In lines 10-11, it is unclear if “the seating rail port” is the same as the at least on seating rail port, or an entirely different seating rail port;
In line 11, it is unclear if “modular cables” are the same as the plurality of modular cables;
In line 15, it is unclear if “cables” are the same as the plurality of modular cables;
In line 16, it is unclear if “the armrest” refers to all of the claimed armrests or the armrest of a respective seat;
In line 17, it is unclear if “the enclosure” is referring to the electrical enclosures or entirely different enclosure, and if it is referring to the electrical enclosures, it is unclear if it is referring to one of, or all of, the electrical enclosures;
In lines 20, 25, and 30, it is unclear if “lengths” in “a plurality of cable lengths” refers to varying dimensioned cables or if “length” is intended to be “sections”, as the definition of a “length” of a cable can be a dimension of, or a section of, the cable. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “plurality of cable lengths” of lines 25 and 30 is intended to be the same as that of line 20, or entirely different cable lengths between each of the first, second, and third sets of modular cables;
In line 22, it is unclear if “the junction box and armrest” is referring to all of the junction boxes and armrests, or the junction box and armrest of a respective seat. Applicant is reminded that, should “the armrest” of line 16 be amended to “the armrest of a respective seat”, and should “the junction box and armrest” of line 22 be intended to also be of a respective seat, line 22 should be amended to be “the junction box and armrest of the respective seat”; and
In line 26, applicant is reminded that, should “the armrest” of line 16 be amended to “the armrest of a respective seat” or should “the junction box and armrest” of line 22 be amended to be “the junction box and armrest of a respective seat”, “a respective seat” will be unclear and would need to be amended to “the respective seat” if intended to be the same respective seat.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if “a transformer” in line 2 is referring to the same transformer of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11:
In line 2, it is unclear if “the armrest” is referring to all of the armrests of claim 9, the armrest of the respective seat, or an entirely different armrest; and
In lines 2 and 3, “the respective seat and backrest” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12:
In lines 1-2 and 3, it is unclear what is meant by “free play adjustment”;
In line 2, it is unclear if “armrest” is referring to all of the armrests of claim 9, the armrest of the respective seat, or an entirely different armrest; and
In lines 2-3, “the seat and/or backrest” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13:
In line 5, it is unclear if “one seat and one backrest” is referring to one seat of the plurality of seats and one backrest of the plurality of backrests, or an entirely different one seat and one backrest; and
In line 6, it is unclear if “each adjacent pair of side armrest assemblies” are of the plurality of side armrest assemblies or different pairs of side armrest assemblies.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, in line 2, it is unclear if “each side rest assembly” is referring to each side rest assembly of the plurality of side rest assemblies, or entirely different side rest assemblies.
Regarding claim 18, in line 2, it is unclear if “plus or minus 0.5 inches” is a total range, being “about or around 0.5 inches”, or just a deviation from a nominal position, being left or right movement.
Regarding claim 19:
In lines 1-2, it is unclear if “seat and backrest” is referring to the one seat and one backrest of claim 13, the plurality of seats and backrests of claim 13, or an entirely different seat and backrest;
In line 2, it is unclear if “plus or minus 7.5 degrees” is a total range, being “about or around 7.5 degrees”, or just a deviation from a nominal position, being clockwise or counterclockwise rotational movement.
Regarding claim 22, in line 1, it is unclear if “the slotted opening” is referring to one of, or all of, the slotted openings of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, in line 3, it is unclear if “the pivot element” is referring to one respective, or all of, the pivot elements of claim 20.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24:
In lines 1 and 2, it is unclear if “the pivot element” is referring to one respective, or all of, the pivot elements of claim 20; and
In line 1, it is unclear if “the pivot cavity” is referring to one respective, or all of, the pivot cavities of claim 20.
Regarding claim 25, in line 1, it is unclear if “the pivot element” is referring to one respective, or all of, the pivot elements of claim 20.
Regarding claim 26:
In line 1, it is unclear if “the seat” is referring to one of, or all of the plurality of, the seats of claim 13; and
In line 2, it is unclear if “the pivot cavity is referring to one respective, or all of, the pivot cavities of claim 20.
Regarding claim 27, in lines 5-6, it is unclear if “each adjacent pair of side assemblies” are of the plurality of side armrest assemblies or different pairs of side armrest assemblies.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 27.
Regarding claim 29:
In line 5, it is unclear if “one seat and one backrest” is referring to one seat of the plurality of seats and one backrest of the plurality of backrests, or an entirely different one seat and one backrest; and
In line 6, it is unclear if “each adjacent pair of side assemblies” are of the plurality of side armrest assemblies or different pairs of side armrest assemblies.
Also regarding claim 29, claim limitations “power input means for receiving mains power”, “power distribution means for supplying DC power to each seat”, and “data transmission means for connecting data cables between each seat to create a daisy-chained data connection” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “power input means”, “power distribution means”, and “data transmission means” are each devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, in line 2, it is unclear if “data cables” refers to the data cables of claim 29 or are entirely different data cables.
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, 3-5, 13, 15, 17, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher (US-7073858-B2).
Fisher discloses a beam seating system for stadiums.
Claim 1 – Fisher teaches a seating system for venues such as stadiums and arenas (“stadium seating” in column 1, line 24), the seating system comprising:
a support beam (element 10 in figure 2);
a plurality of side armrest assemblies secured to the support beam (element 86 in figure 12);
a plurality of seats (element 52 in figure 9) and backrests (element 51 in figure 9), one seat and/or one backrest being attached between each adjacent pair of side armrest assemblies (figure 1); and
at least one side armrest assembly and the seat and/or backrest configured to provide a range of free play adjustment in a longitudinal direction parallel to the support beam, the free play adjustment permitting adjustment of a position of the seat and backrest relative to the side armrest assembly before securing the seat and/or backrest to the side armrest assembly (“simply slide the seats along the beam so that they are either spaced a greater or lesser distance from each other” in column 6, lines 7-9).
Claim 3 – Fisher teaches the range of free play adjustment is provided by a connection between the side armrest assembly and the seat and/or backrest (in figure 1, it can be seen that the ability to slide the seats along the beam is provided by the armrest assemblies sliding along the beam, the armrest assemblies being connected to the seats).
Claim 4 – Fisher teaches an angular free play adjustment is provided (element 63, “seat rotation mechanism” in column 5, lines 14-15).
Claim 5 – Fisher teaches the support beam includes elongate ports or channels (element 14 in figure 3) housing cables (“cabling passing through the aperture 14 in the body of the beam” in column 7, lines 1-2).
Claim 13 – Fisher teaches a seating system for venues such as stadiums and arenas (“stadium seating” in column 1, line 24), the seating system comprising:
a support beam (element 10 in figure 2);
a plurality of side armrest assemblies secured to the support beam (element 86 in figure 12); and
a plurality of seats (element 52 in figure 9) and backrests (element 51 in figure 9), one seat and one back rest being attached between each adjacent pair of side armrest assemblies (figure 1).
Claim 15 – Fisher teaches the support beam has a profiled cross-section (figure 3), and each side armrest assembly has a clamping section for secure attachment to the profiled cross-section of the support beam (figure 3).
Claim 17 – Fisher teaches the backrests are securely fixed between pairs of side armrest assemblies using flanges (“complimentary shaped part” in column 5, lines 24-25) and threaded holes on the side armrest assemblies (“threaded insert 65 in the free end of the member 61” to receive a screw in column 5, lines 26-28).
Claim 27 – Fisher teaches a method for installing a seating system in venues with varying row lengths (“stadium seating” in column 1, line 24, varying lengths is an inherent property of stadium seating as rows of seating are known to be broken up by stairwells and entrances), the method comprising:
providing a support beam (element 10 in figure 2);
securing a plurality of side assemblies to the support beam (element 86 in figure 12); and
attaching one seat (element 52 in figure 9) and one backrest (element 51 in figure 9) between each adjacent pair of side assemblies (figure 1).
Claim 28 – Fisher teaches the support beam is curved so as to follow curvature and shape of an arena or venue (figure 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 6, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US-7073858-B2) alone.
Claim 2 – Fisher does not specifically teach the range of free play adjustment is between plus or minus 5 mm to 20 mm.
Fisher teaches, as explained above, the ability to move the seats to be a greater or lesser distance apart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try moving the seats between plus or minus 5 mm to 20 mm apart to find the optimal spacing that allows to most seats to fit on a beam without sacrificing user comfort.
Claim 6 – Fisher teaches cables connecting to some or all of the seats (see rejection of claim 5 above) but does not teach the cables are connected in a daisy chain or an overlapping configuration.
When connecting electronics, the two well-known options are running the wires in series or running them parallel. Daisy-chaining, as described by paragraph [0061] of the applicant’s specification, is running in series. Running in series is useful when there is a long line of electronics needing power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to run the cables in series, or daisy chain, them together.
Claim 14 – Fisher does not teach the plurality of seats and backrests include at least a first set of seats and backrests having a first width, and a second set of seats and backrests having a second width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, being that the seats of Fisher can be slid along the support beam, that the seats can be slid to be various widths apart and that the seats can be slid closer to one another to form “sets” of seats.
Claim 18 – Fisher is silent on the side armrest assemblies, seats, and backrests collectively permit a range of adjustment of plus or minus 0.5 inches (12 - 13 mm) in seat width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the seats of Fisher can slide in any range of adjustment, cable length permitting, and therefore a range of adjustment of plus or minus 0.5 inches (12 – 13 mm) in seat width would have been obvious.
Claims 7-12 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US-7073858-B2) in view of Chi Man Ho (GB-2593795-A).
Chi Man Ho (CMH) discloses enclosures and power and data routing for a seating arrangement.
Claim 7 – Fisher teaches the cables but does not teach the cables include pre-fitted plug and play connectors.
CMH teaches pre-fitted plug and play connectors (element 56, described as an “OEM connector” in line 23 on page 3).
OEM, standing for “original equipment manufacturer”, which means the connectors are pre-fitted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pre-fitted connectors to allow for quicker install times, rather than having to solder connections manually.
Claim 8 – Fisher does not teach electrical enclosures.
CMH teaches electrical enclosures are clamped to an underside of the support beam, accommodating connections between the cables (element 10 in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Fisher with the electrical enclosures of CMH to ensure the cables are properly and neatly routed to the necessary electronics.
Claim 9 – Fisher teaches a seating system apparatus (figure 1), the seating system apparatus comprising:
a seating rail (element 10 in figure 2) with a plurality of elongate ports (element 14 in figure 3);
each port containing a plurality of modular cables (“cabling passing through the aperture 14 in the body of the beam” in column 7, lines 1-2); and
armrests (element 86 in figure 12).
Fisher does not teach electrical enclosures clamped to an underside of the seating rail, accommodating the modular cables, and Fisher does not teach the armrests featuring:
junction boxes at the seating rail and providing cable routes;
a housing having a cavity therein;
a seating rail engagement structure integrated into the housing;
at least one seating rail port extending through the housing, wherein the seating rail port is configured to receive modular cables for power and data transmission;
a cover cap for the cavity of the housing, the cover cap configured for closure and servicing;
at least one armrest port extending through the housing, configured to allow cables to pass from the seating rail into the housing and electrically connect with at least one electronic accessory of the armrest;
a connection block within the enclosure for connecting DC cables to a transformer;
the modular cables being chosen from:
a first set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths extending from one seat to the next seat, each modular cable being connectable to a loop extending through the junction box and armrest, such that the first set of modular cables can be connected in series, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors;
a second set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths, each extending from an electrical enclosure to a respective seat and extending through the junction box and armrest of the respective seat, such that the second set of modular cables can be connected in an overlapping manner, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors; and
a third set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths, each extending from one electrical enclosure to another electrical enclosure, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors.
CMH teaches electrical enclosures (figures 4, 6, and 8) clamped to an underside of the seating rail accommodating the modular cables (element 12 in figure 1); and
CMH teaches:
junction boxes (element 10 in figure 1) at the seating rail and providing cable routes;
a housing having a cavity therein (element 40 in figure 4);
a seating rail engagement structure integrated into the housing (element 37 in figure 3);
a cover cap for the cavity of the housing, the cover cap configured for closure and servicing (element 38 in figure 4);
a connection block (element 140 in figure 8) within the enclosure for connecting DC cables to a transformer (element 162 in figure 8);
the modular cables being chosen from:
a first set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths extending from one seat to the next seat, each modular cable being connectable to a loop extending through the junction box and armrest, such that the first set of modular cables can be connected in series, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors;
a second set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths, each extending from an electrical enclosure to a respective seat and extending through the junction box and armrest of the respective seat, such that the second set of modular cables can be connected in an overlapping manner, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors; and
a third set of modular cables comprising a plurality of cable lengths (element 124 in figure 8), each extending from one electrical enclosure to another electrical enclosure, each cable length being equipped with pre-fitted plug and play connectors (figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Fisher with the electrical enclosures of CMH to ensure the cables are properly and neatly routed to the necessary electronics. While CMH doesn’t show how the cabling reaches the armrests, with the obvious reasoning of routing electricity to the seats being to provide the user power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a seating rail port and an armrest port to receive modular cables from the housing to receive power and data transmission to an electronic accessory at the armrest.
Claim 10 – Fisher does not teach the electrical enclosures include a transformer to convert high voltage mains power to lower voltage DC power.
CMH teaches the electrical enclosures include a transformer (element 162 in figure 8) to convert high voltage mains power to lower voltage DC power (page 5, lines 7-16 explain how the transformer has a 240-volt input and a 12-volt output).
Voltage entering a system is usually much higher than what a consumer device or typical electronic requires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the system of Fisher with the transformer of CMH when modifying Fisher to power devices.
Claim 11 – Fisher does not teach the at least one electronic accessory of the armrest includes controls (“the screen may have brightness and contrast controls”).
CMH teaches the at least one electronic accessory of the armrest includes a heating device for heating the respective seat and backrest (“heater pads” in line 9 of page 1) and charging points (“USB or inductive technology for device charging” in lines 9-10 of page 1).
Being that Fisher was already aware of the benefits of having electrical power to the seats, to power the screens of Fisher for example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seat’s user with other experience-enhancing devices such as the heater pads or charging points of CMH. Neither CMH nor Fisher discloses a cooling device for cooling the respective seat and backrest or controls. Stadium seats are used in both cold and hot environments. In warmer areas of the world, it would be obvious that a heater pad is not as desirable, but to try a cooling pad. It also would have been obvious to provide controls for such devices.
Claim 12 – Fisher teaches a range of free play adjustment is provided by a connection between the armrest and the seat and/or backrest (in figure 1, the armrest can be seen as the connection allowing for the free play adjustment, and “simply slide the seats along the beam so that they are either spaced a greater or lesser distance from each other” in column 6, lines 7-9).
Fisher does not specifically state the modular cables allow for the range of free play adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cables of Fisher would need to be able to allow for the seat to move without exerting too much stress on the cables to the point of failure.
Claim 29 – Fisher teaches seating system for venues such as stadiums and arenas (“stadium seating” in column 1, line 24), the seating system comprising:
a support beam (element 10 in figure 2);
a plurality of side armrest assemblies secured to the support beam (element 86 in figure 12);
a plurality of seats (element 52 in figure 9) and backrests (element 51 in figure 9), one seat and one backrest being attached between each adjacent pair of side armrest assemblies (figure 1);
an electrical system integrated into the support beam including power distribution means for supplying DC power to each seat (“cabling passing through the aperture 14 in the body of the beam” in column 7, lines 102).
Fish does not teach the electrical system including:
power input means for receiving mains power (page 5, lines 7-16 explain how the transformer has a 240-volt input and a 12-volt output); and
data transmission means for connecting data cables between each seat to create a daisy-chained data connection (“a suitable cable for carrying data” in line 12 on page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a power input means for receiving mains power would be necessary to power the screens of Fisher. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the screens of Fisher with a data transmission means. When connecting electronics, the two well-known options are running the wires in series or running them parallel. Daisy-chaining, as described by paragraph [0061] of the applicant’s specification, is running in series. Running in series is useful when there is a long line of electronics needing power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to run the cables in series, or daisy chain, them together.
Claim 30 – Fisher teaches the support beam includes channels for accommodating a cable for the mains power, DC power cables, and data cables (element 14 in figure 3).
Claim 31 – Fisher teaches the side armrest assemblies include controls (“the screen may have brightness and contrast controls”).
CMH teaches charging points (“USB or inductive technology for device charging” in lines 9-10 of page 1).
Being that Fisher was already aware of the benefits of having electrical power to the seats, to power the screens of Fisher for example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seat’s user with other experience-enhancing devices such as the charging points of CMH.
Claim 32 – Fisher does not teach the side armrest assemblies include heating devices for heating the respective seat and backrest and cooling devices for cooling the respective seat and backrest.
CMH teaches the side armrest assemblies include heating devices for heating the respective seat and backrest (“heater pads” in line 9 of page 1).
Being that Fisher was already aware of the benefits of having electrical power to the seats, to power the screens of Fisher for example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seat’s user with other experience-enhancing devices such as the heater pads of CMH. Neither CMH nor Fisher discloses a cooling device for cooling the respective seat and backrest or controls. Stadium seats are in both cold and hot environments. In warmer areas of the world, it would be obvious that a heater pad is not as desirable, but to try a cooling pad. It also would have been obvious to provide controls for such devices.
Claims 16 and 19-21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US-7073858-B2) in view of Olarte (US-10681983-B2)).
Olarte discloses a beam seating system.
Claim 16 – Fisher does not teach the seats have tangs and the side armrest assemblies have pivots with cavities corresponding to the tangs, the tangs being secured within the pivots to prevent relative movement or rotation between the seats and the side armrest assemblies.
Olarte teaches the seats have tangs (elements 84 and 86 in figure 25C) and the side armrest assemblies have pivots (figures 24A-25C) with cavities corresponding to the tangs (elements 88 and 90 in figure 25C), the tangs being secured within the pivots to prevent relative movement or rotation between the seats and the side armrest assemblies (figure 25C).
Fisher teaches a seat rotation mechanism, element 63, however Fisher is silent on the exact structure of the seat rotation mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the seat rotation mechanism of Olarte as the mechanism of Fisher in order to properly construct the disclosure of Fisher.
Claim 19 – Fisher does not specifically teach the side armrest assemblies, seat, and backrest permit a range of adjustment of plus or minus 7.5 degrees in coupling angle.
Olarte is silent on the exact range of adjustment of coupling angle.
Olarte does specify that the term “angle refers to a range of angles” in column 1, line 65. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when implementing the seat rotation mechanism of Olarte, that a range of angles can be tried and used, including a range of plus or minus 7.5 degrees.
Claim 20 – Fisher does not teach the seats have pivot cavities that receive respective pivot elements partially therein, and wherein the pivot elements mount to respective side armrest assemblies.
Olarte teaches pivot cavities (elements 88 and 90 in figure 25C) and teaches pivot elements (elements 84 and 86 in figure 25C), however Olarte teaches the pivot cavities are on the side armrest assemblies and the pivot elements are on the seat (figure 26).
When utilizing the seat rotation mechanism of Olarte in the disclosure of Fisher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the pivot cavities on the seat and the pivot elements on the armrest assemblies since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 21 – Fisher teaches mounting via threaded fasteners (“threaded insert 65 in the free end of the member 61” to receive a screw in column 5, lines 26-28) but does not teach pivot elements having slotted openings to receive threaded fasteners for attachment.
Being that Fisher teaches mounting via threaded fasteners and threaded inserts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying the disclosure of Fisher with the seat rotation mechanism of Olarte, to use the already-known technique of attachment that is threaded fasteners and threaded inserts.
Claim 25 – Fisher does not teach the pivot element is formed of a glass-filled polymeric material that is at least 50 percent glass-filled, however Fisher does teach parts such as mounting brackets and supports can be made of a glass-filled polymeric material (“a glass reinforced plastics material” in column 3, lines 26-27, or column 5, lines 20-21).
It would have been obvious to use a material already disclosed by Fisher for the pivot element when modified to include the rotation mechanism of Olarte, such as the glass-filled polymeric material, and it would have been obvious to try various percentages of glass fillings to ensure the material is properly suited for the use.
Claim 26 – Fisher does not teach at least a portion of the seat that defines the pivot cavity is formed of a glass-filled polymeric material that is at least 50 percent glass-filled, however Fisher does teach parts such as mounting brackets and supports can be made of a glass-filled polymeric material (“a glass reinforced plastics material” in column 3, lines 26-27, or column 5, lines 20-21).
It would have been obvious to use a material already disclosed by Fisher for the pivot cavity when modified to include the rotation mechanism of Olarte, such as the glass-filled polymeric material, and it would have been obvious to try various percentages of glass fillings to ensure the material is properly suited for the use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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