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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “an upper part of the main support member” and in line 3 recites “an upper part of the side support members” which were already disclosed in claim 1, from which 2 depends. Examiner suggests amending to “the upper part of the main support member” and “the upper part of the side support members.” 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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center portion" in line 5, “the frame side” in line 8, “the frame side” in line 11, “the upper part” in line 13, “the upper part” in line 16, and “the front-rear” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Each limitation is the first recitation of each element and requires proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the front surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “on the front surface of the upper part of the side support member.” This language is unclear as the side support members have previously been recited in the plural as “side support members” or “each of the side support members.” Examiner suggests clarifying and being consistent with claim language.
Claim 4 recites “the engaging portion” in lines 1 and 2. However, the claims recite having “engaging portions” or “each engaging portion” in the previous claims as there are more than one. It is unclear from “the engaging portion” which one is being claimed. Examiner suggest clarifying and using consistent with claim language.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rear surface" in in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the side members” in line 1. The previous recitation is to “a pair of side members.” Examiner suggests clarifying and using consistent claim language.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous recitation is to “a rectangular-shaped hole” and in order to avoid confusion to as if there are multiple holes, Examiner suggests changing the second recitation to “the rectangular-shaped hole.”
Claim 5 recites “the engaged portion” and “the engaging portion” in the singular. However, in claim 1, from which 5 depends, the elements are claimed in the plural. It is unclear from the claim if only one engaged portion has the structure recited in claim 5, or if all have the structure. Examiner suggest clarifying and using consistent language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the center portion" in line 4, “the frame side” in 6, “the frame side” in line 9, and “the engaged portions” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is not previous recitation of any of the above listed elements. Examiner suggests amending to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side frames" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “the weakened portion includes an outer bending portion having a thinner wall thickness.” It is unclear from the claim limitation what exactly “thinner wall thickness” means. It could mean that the bending portion is thinner than the weakened portion, or the bending portion is thinner than the rest of the wall. The limitation is unclear to what “thinner wall thickness” would entail. Examiner suggests clearly defining the wall dimension.
Claim 10 recites “the engaging portion” in both lines 1 and 2. However, in the previous claims the recitation is to “engaging portions.” It is unclear to which specific one “engaging portion” claim 10 is directed, or whether all “engaging portions” include the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites “the engaged portion” in both lines 1 and 2. However, in the previous claims the recitation is to “engaged portions.” It is unclear to which specific one “engaged portion” claim 11 is directed, or whether all “engaged portions” include the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “the engaged portion” in line 1. However, in the previous claims the recitation is to “engaged portions.” It is unclear to which specific one “engaged portion” claim 12 is directed, or whether all “engaged portions” include the limitations of claim 12.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected due to their dependence from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2020/0070699 to Kakashima et al. (hereinafter Kakashima).
Regarding claim 1, Kakashima discloses a seat back (31) comprising: a frame (13) that forms a framework (see Figure 1); and a cushion member that is attached to the frame and elastically supports a seater (21, 31, 41; see at least Figure 1), wherein the cushion member includes a main member (31M) at the center portion in a seat width direction, and a pair of side members (31e and d) located on both sides of the main member (31M), wherein the main member (31M) includes a main pad (31ab, bb, and cb), a main cover (31ac, bc, and cc) that covers the main pad (see paragraphs [0082]-[0084]), and a main support member (31aa, ba, ca) that is attached to the frame side (13) of the main pad (31M) and supports the main pad (see at least Figure 16), wherein each of the pair of side members (31e and d) includes a side pad (31db, eb), a side cover (31dc, ec) that covers the side pad (31d, e), and a side support member (31da, ea) that is attached to the frame side (13) of the side pad (31d and e) and supports the side pad (see at least Figure 16), wherein a pair of right and left engaging portions (see near 15db on 31ba in Figure 16) are located on the upper part of the main support member (see intersection G on Figure 12 showing where engagements happens as shown in Figure 16), and wherein an engaged portion (see portion in 15db on 31da as shown in Figure 16) that is engaged with one of the engaging portions is formed on the upper part of each of the side support members (see G-G line in Figure 12 shown in Figure 16 is engaged/engaging portion in upper half of 31M), and each engaging portion engages against one of the respective engaged portions (see Figure 16 showing the portion on the 31d side), and the main support member (31aa, ba, and ca) and each side support member (31da, ea) are disabled from moving each other in the front-rear and right-left directions (see where they are attached by 15db).
Regarding claim 2, Kakashima discloses the side support members (31da, ea) and the main support member (31aa, ba, ca) are attached to the frame (13), and wherein an upper part of the main support member (31aa) is configured to overlap an upper part of the side support member (31da or ea; see at least Figure 16 showing a cross section at line G-G from Figure 12 for both the upper and middle part of main support member).
Regarding claim 6, Kakashima discloses a seat back (31) comprising: a frame (31) that forms a framework; and a cushion member (21, 31, 41) attached to the frame (13; see at least Figure 1), wherein the cushion member (21, 31, 41) includes a main member (31M) located at the center portion, the main member includes a main pad (31ab, bb, cb), a main cover (31ac, bc, cc) that covers the main pad (31ab, bb, and cb), and a main support member (31aa, ba, ca) that is attached to the frame side of the main pad (31ab, bb, cb) and supports the main pad (see at least Figure 16 and paragraphs [0082]-[0084]), a pair of side members (31d and e) located on both sides of the main member (31M), each of the pair of side members (31d and e) includes a side pad (31db, eb), a side cover (31dc, ec) that covers the side pad, and a side support member (31da, ea) attached to the frame side (13) of the side pad and supports the side pad (see at least Figure 16), and an engagement mechanism (see Figure 16 where 15db attached 31aa, ba to 31da/ea) having a plurality of engaging portions connected with a plurality of the engaged portions of the side support member (see at least Figure 16 showing one of locations of engagement).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakashima in view of US Patent 7,695,064 to Thomas et al. (hereinafter Thomas).
Kakashima is discussed above, but fails to disclose the details of having airbag devices in the side members as disclosed in claims 7-9.
Thomas discloses a seat back with an airbag device (18) assembled to an outer surface of the side frames (see Figure 2) of the frame (24), wherein each of the side members (34; see at least Figure 3 showing the side configuration) is configured to cover one of the airbag devices. Thomas also discloses the side support member (see Figure 5) includes a through-hole configured to receive one of the airbag devices (see inset at 24 and through holes for bolts 70), and wherein the side support member further comprises a weakened portion (see corners/ends of 82) configured to rupture (see Figure 5) upon deployment of the airbag device for allowing a portion of the side support member to deform (see Figure 6 where the entire outer portion deforms). Thomas discloses the weakened portion (see corners of 82 where meets 20 and 80) includes an outer bending portion (see where there are bends at thin portions) having a thinner wall thickness, and wherein the weakened portion is configured to rupture when a load is applied by airbag deployment (see at least Figure 5 showing deployed airbag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have the airbag modules as disclosed in Thomas on the side structures of the seat of Kakashima with a reasonable expectation of success as side airbags are old and well-known and in order to provide the seat of Kakashima with proper side protection for a passenger. The combination would yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is applied above, but fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious, either alone or in combination, where engaged portions have a box-shape that open upward; the engaging portions are hook-shaped that open downwards; or the engaged portion located on a front surface of the upper part of the side support member has a plate-shaped portion with a rectangular-shaped hole, and wherein the engaging portion located on a rear surface of the upper part of the main support member has a columnar portion with a cross-shaped cross section extending downward being configured to be inserted into the hole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art on the attached PTO-892 all related to seat structure and side airbag configurations within seat structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tiffany L. Webb whose telephone number is (571)272-3950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30-5.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights