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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of paragraph [0035], “each blower locking claw 38” is incorrectly written as the “blower locking portion” is element number 38, and “the plural locking claws” is element number 48.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
It is unclear if “a vehicle seat” in line 1 is the same as the “vehicle seat” of claim 1, on which claim 3 is dependent.
It is unclear if “a seat back” in line 3 is the same as the “seat back” of claim 1, on which claim 3 is dependent.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (CN-106004601-B) in view of Blair (US-12704863-B2).
Both Berry and Blair disclose a blower mounted to a vehicle seat back.
Claim 1 – Berry teaches a blower mounting structure (element 140 in figure 4) for a vehicle seat (figure 1), the structure comprising:
a blower mounting member (element 92 in figure 4) disposed in a seat back of the vehicle seat (figure 4) and provided with a blower mounting hole (element 102 in figure 4) and a locking portion (element 146 in figures 4 and 9); and
a blower (element 100 in figure 4) that is mounted to the blower mounting member by being subjected to rotation in one direction about an axis of the blower mounting hole in a state of being fitted into the blower mounting hole (“blower 100 is then rotated so that the locking lug 144 is fixed in the locking groove 146” in paragraph 15 of the “Specific implementation examples” section of the disclosure), and having a lock portion (element 144 in figure 4) that is locked to the locking portion by the rotation (figure 4).
Berry is silent on a center of gravity of the blower being set at a position at which a rotational force in the one direction about the axis acts on the blower. Blair teaches a center of gravity of the blower is set at a position at which a rotational force in the one direction about the axis acts on the blower.
Blair does not specifically mention where the center of gravity is located on the blower. However, the shape of the blower of Blair can be seen in figure 2 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the shape of the blower of Blair would have a center of gravity that is not aligned with the center point of the circular portion of the blower. A blower shape, such as that taught by Blair, paired with a rotational locking mechanism would ensure that, when gravity is acting on it, the blower would rotate into locking rather than unlocking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blower shape that would have the center of gravity of the blower set at a position at which a rotational force in the one direction about the axis acts on the blower to ensure that the blower does not rotate in such a way that the lock portion unlocks from the locking portion.
Claim 2 – Berry teaches the blower mounting structure is configured such that the locking portion has an elongated hole (element 146 in figure 9, rather than the locking portion being a projection as claimed – see rationale below),
the lock portion is a projection (element 144 in figure 4, rather than the lock portion having an elongated hole as claimed – see rationale below), and
the projection is inserted into one end of the elongated hole in a longitudinal direction of the hole when the blower is fitted into the blower mounting hole, and the projection is held at another end of the elongated hole in the longitudinal direction by being disposed, by the rotation, at the other end of the elongated hole in the longitudinal direction (“blower 100 is then rotated so that the locking lug 144 is fixed in the locking groove 146” in paragraph 15 of the “Specific implementation examples” section of the disclosure).
While Berry teaches the locking portion having an elongated hole and the lock portion being a projection, rather than the opposite as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the locking portion be the projection and the lock portion have the elongated hole 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 3 – Berry teaches a vehicle seat (figure 1), comprising:
a seat cushion on which an occupant is seated (element 12 in figure 1); and
a seat back that supports a back of the occupant (element 14 in figure 1) and that has the blower mounting structure for a vehicle seat according to claim 1 (figure 3).
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
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights