View source for Patent Application 18931191 - VEHICLE SEAT - Rejection

= Patent Application 18931191 - VEHICLE SEAT =

'''Title:''' VEHICLE SEAT

== Application Information ==
* '''Invention Title:''' VEHICLE SEAT
* '''Application Number:''' 18931191
* '''Submission Date:''' 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
* '''Effective Filing Date:''' 2024-10-30T00:00:00.000Z
* '''Filing Date:''' 2024-10-30T00:00:00.000Z
* '''Examiner Employee Number:''' 95536
* '''Art Unit:''' 3614
* '''Tech Center:''' 3600

== Rejection Summary ==
* 102 Rejections: 1
* 103 Rejections: 4

== Cited Patents ==
The following patents were cited in the rejection:

* [https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=3779577 US 3779577]&#x1F517;
* [https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=8162394 US 8162394]&#x1F517;
* [https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=5542696 US 5542696]&#x1F517;
* [https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=5845932 US 5845932]&#x1F517;

== Office Action Text ==
<pre>


    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 .

Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites “inner side surface of the seat beck frame. Examiner notes this should be changed to “seat back frame”.  Appropriate correction is required.

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.


(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.


Claim 1, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US 5845932).
In regards to claim 1, Kimura discloses vehicle seat comprising: a plate frame member (5) which constitutes a side portion of a seat back frame (3)(see fig.1,4, and 5); a bracket (11) is attached to the seat back frame (3); and an airbag module (25) which is fixed to the bracket (11), wherein an upper end of the bracket (20) is located below an upper end of the plate frame member (5)( see fig.1 and fig.5, in fig.1 you can see 26 which is the cover of the airbag module is fixed at H3 to the bracket 11 as shown in fig.5, it is clear that the upper end of the bracket aligns with the upper end of the cover 26, which as shown is located below an upper end of the plate frame member 5,6). 
In regards to claim 5, Kimura discloses wherein the plate frame member (5) includes a rear flange (7) that extends inward in a seat width direction from a rear end portion of the plate frame member (see fig.4), wherein the bracket (11) includes an attachment portion (13) that is attached to an inner side surface of the seat beck frame (3,4) in the seat width direction and a back protrusion portion (14) that protrudes backward from the attachment portion (13)(see fig.4); and wherein an outer end portion of the back protrusion portion (14) in the seat width direction is placed on an outside of an inner end portion of the rear flange (7) in the seat width direction (see fig.4).  
In regards to claim 6, Kimura discloses wherein a portion of the back protrusion portion (14, 15) overlaps a portion of the rear flange (5,7) in a front to back direction (see fig.4).  
In regards to claim 11, Kimura discloses method of manufacturing a vehicle seat (see fig.1) comprising: providing a plate frame member (5) which constitutes a side portion of a seat back frame (3,4)(see fig.1); attaching a bracket (11) to the seat back frame (3,4); and fixing an airbag module(M) to the bracket (11), wherein an upper end of the bracket (11) is located below an upper end of the plate frame member (it is shown in fig.5 that the upper and lower bounds of the bracket align with the upper and lower bounds of 26, in fig.1 it is clear that the upper end of 26 is located below the upper end of the plate frame member 5 and therefore as would the brackets upper end). 
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.

Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5845932). 
In regards to claim 2, Kimura discloses, further comprising: a pair of plate frames that include a first plate frame and a second plate frame disposed on respective right and left sides of the seat back frame, one of the first plate frame and the second frame being the plate frame member, (the left side of the seat is shown in fig. 1-5). Although the right side is not shown, Kimura discloses the overall shape of the seat back frame is formed into a substantially u-shaped facing downwards the vertical portion 4 (where the plate frames are mounted) are disposed on each the right- and left-hand portions of the seat back 3, see col. 3 lines 34-38, Fig.1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Kimura with a reasonable expectation of success, having a second plate frames on the right side of the seat symmetrical with the left providing a uniform seat and facilitate assembly by providing a uniform construction. Kimura further discloses wherein the seat back frame includes an upper frame that connects upper end portions of the pair of plate frames, and (see fig.1 the seat back frame is a upside down U shaped, facing downwards, col. 3 lines 33-38, thereby including a upper portion connecting the left and right side) wherein a lower end of the bracket is located above a lower end of the upper frame (lower end of the bracket 11, aligns with 26 as shown in fig. 5, and the lower end of 26 is clearly above a lower end of the upper frame 4).  
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5845932) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 8162394).
In regards to claim 3, Kimura discloses the seat back frame (3) includes a pressure receiving member (lumbar support and pad 40) that is disposed between the pair of plate frames (between the left and right sides of the seat where the plate frames are located) and configured to receive a load from an occupant of the vehicle seat, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the pressure receiving member includes a plane-shaped portion configured to receive the load from the occupant and a connecting member connected to the seat back frame wherein an upper end of the bracket is located below an upper end of the connecting member.  And in regards to claim 4, wherein the lower end of the bracket is located above an upper end of the plane-shaped portion.  
However, Yasuda teaches a vehicle seat similar to Kimura with a seat back frame (20), wherein the seat back frame (20) includes a pressure receiving member (40) that is disposed between the pair of plate frames (21a, b) and configured to receive a load from an occupant of the vehicle seat wherein the pressure receiving member (40) includes a plane-shaped portion (see fig.2) configured to receive the load from the occupant and a connecting member (48) connected to the seat back frame (21a,b), and It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kimura with the improved vehicle seat Yasuda teaches and provide a pressure receiving member between the pair of plate frames, improving the integrity of the seat back as well as supporting the occupant and ensure the occupant is properly positioned to receive the safety devices. Regarding claim 4, therefore, in combination, the bracket of Kimura would be located below the connecting member Yasuda teaches as the connecting member is located at the top most part of the plate members nearer the headrest, see fig.2 Yasuda. 
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5845932) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wilfert (US 3779577).
In regards to claim 7, Kimura discloses wherein the airbag module (M) includes a casing (25) and an airbag (see arrow fig.3) that is housed inside the casing, and wherein an inflator (23) configured to generate gas to be injected into the airbag to expand and deploy the airbag is disposed at an outside of the casing (it appears fig.1-3 the inflator is on the exterior of the airbag). However, Kimura doesn’t specifically show the inflator positioned as claimed. Wilfert teaches an airbag on the side of a vehicle seat frame, similar to Kimura where the inflator is located spaced apart from the airbag. It would have been obvious to a person in ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Kimura with the improvement technique of Wilfert, spacing the inflator and the airbag from each other, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for easier mounting, optimizing space on the side frame, allow for easier maintenance and even provide air to multiple airbags if desired. 
In regards to claim 8, Kimura in view of Wilfert teach wherein the inflator is disposed below the casing. See Wilfert inflator 7 fig. 1 spaced below the airbag casing 3,4. 
Claims 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5845932) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Steffens (US 5542696).
In regards to claim 7, Kimura discloses wherein the airbag module (M) includes a casing (25) and an airbag (see arrow fig.3) that is housed inside the casing, and wherein an inflator (23) configured to generate gas to be injected into the airbag to expand and deploy the airbag is disposed at an outside of the casing (it appears fig.1-3 the inflator is on the exterior of the airbag). However, it is common in the art for the inflator generating and injecting gas into the airbag to be located separate from the airbag. Steffens teaches an inflator 250 spaced apart from an airbag 270, Steffens teaches because the width of the seat is kept to a minimum it can be difficult to mount an inflator and an airbag together, by mounting the inflator separate it allows for increased usable interior space. It would have been obvious to a person in ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Kimura with the improvement technique of Steffens, spacing the inflator and the airbag from each other, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for easier mounting, optimizing space on the side frame, and allow for easier maintenance. 

In regards to claim 8, Kimura and Steffens in combination teach wherein the inflator is disposed below the casing, see fig.5 inflator mounted at least partially below the casing of the airbag 270. 
In regards to claim 9, Kimura teaches a pair of plate frames that include a first plate frame and a second plate frame disposed on respective right and left sides of the seat back frame, one of the first plate frame and the second frame being the plate frame member, (the left side of the seat is shown in fig. 1-5). Although the right side is not shown, Kimura discloses the overall shape of the seat back frame is formed into a substantially u-shaped facing downwards the vertical portion 4 (where the plate frames are mounted) are disposed on each the right- and left-hand portions of the seat back 3, see col. 3 lines 34-38, Fig.1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Kimura with a reasonable expectation of success. 
Kimura discloses wherein the seat back frame includes a lower frame that connects lower end portions of the pair of plate frames, wherein the lower frame includes a front wall portion that is located on a front side in the lower frame, but fails to disclose wherein the inflator is disposed in the lower frame on a rear side of the front wall. See attached Kimura fig.1 with annotations. 

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    556
    448
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale

However, Steffens teaches (see fig.5, 6) the inflator (250) disposed separate from the airbag and at the lower member of the seat frame (226) between a front wall portion (229). Therefore, in combination with the improvement technique as taught by Steffens, with the inflator being disposed separate the airbag, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kimura further in view of Steffens before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification in view of Steffens would result in the seat taking up less space and allow increased interior space.
Additionally, in regards to claim 10, Kimura in view Steffens teaches wherein the lower frame includes a back wall portion that is located on the rear side of the front wall (see fig.1 annotated above, Kimura), and wherein the inflator (see fig.5, Steffens) is disposed between the front wall and the back wall. 
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach vehicle seats having aspects of the claimed apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (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, Paul Dickson can be reached on 571-272-7742. 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.





/C.A.M./               Examiner, Art Unit 3614                                                                                                                                                                                         

/PAUL N DICKSON/               Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614                                                                                                                                                                                         


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    

</pre>

[[Category:102_Rejections]]
[[Category:103_Rejections]]
[[Category:Rejection_Report_29th Apr 2025]]

<!-- JSON-LD markup for search engines:
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Patent Application 18931191 - VEHICLE SEAT - Rejection","name":"Patent Application 18931191 - VEHICLE SEAT - Rejection","description":"USPTO rejection details for patent application 18931191 - VEHICLE SEAT","datePublished":"2025-04-29","mainEntity":{"@type":"GovernmentPermit","permitType":"Patent Application","identifier":"18931191","name":"VEHICLE SEAT","additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"102 Rejections","value":1},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"103 Rejections","value":4}],"isRelatedTo":[{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"US 3779577","identifier":"3779577"},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"US 8162394","identifier":"8162394"},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"US 5542696","identifier":"5542696"},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"US 5845932","identifier":"5845932"}]}}
-->