Ex Parte Sakkinen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

13265514 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/265,514 12/30/2011 50659 7590 BUTZEL LONG, P.C. IP DEPARTMENT 41000 Woodward A venue Stoneridge West Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 03/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel James Sakkinen UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 113601-0563 8763 EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patent@butzel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL JAMES SAKKINEN, NICHOLAS LEONARD PETOUHOFF, ANTHONY KESTIAN, and ERIC MICHALAK Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 Technology Center 3600 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRENT M. DOUGAL, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 6-14 and 18-20 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 6,739,673 B2, iss. May 25, 2004) and Beyer (DE 10 2006 060 056 Al, pub. Feb. 28, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is Johnson Controls Technology Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a seat frame and method of forming using a laser warmed adhesive. Independent claims 6 and 18, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. A method of forming a seat frame, the method comprising the steps of: providing a first seat frame member comprised of a first material; locating a second seat frame member comprised of a second material that is different from the first material with respect to the first seat frame member; positioning an adhesive between the first seat frame member and the second seat frame member at a first interface spot; and focusing a laser beam from a laser welder at the interface spot to heat and cure the adhesive and form a joint between the first seat frame member and the second seat frame member. 18. A method of forming a vehicle seat frame having joined peripheral members, comprising: providing a first seat frame member; locating a second seat frame member with respect to the first seat frame member such that a conformable tab of the first seat frame member is positioned over a bond spot on the second seat frame member, the conformable tab being less rigid than the bond spot: positioning an adhesive between the bond spot and the conformable tab; compressing the conformable tab toward the bond spot; and focusing a laser beam from a laser welder at the bond spot or conformable tab to heat and cure the adhesive and form a joint between the first seat member and the second seat member. 2 Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 OPINION Claims 6--14 Claim 6 is independent, and claims 7-14 depend therefrom. The Examiner finds that Gupta teaches "the use of providing a first (12) and second seat frame member (156) composed of different materials and applying an adhesive thereto inherently at an interface spot (Figs. 1 lA- 1 lE)" as required by claim 6. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Gupta teaches welding the frame members together, but does not teach "the use of focusing a laser weld immediately after applying the adhesive to cure the adhesive." Id. The Examiner relies on Beyer for teaching this, as well as Beyer's focus on spot welding in the automotive industry. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine Beyer's teachings with Gupta "in order to quickly join the seat frame members and by reducing the curing time of the adhesive bond through laser welding." Id. at 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner has wrongly characterized Gupta's elements 12 and 156 as frame members. Appeal Br. 7. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants define frame as '"an arrangement of parts that support and form the basic shape of something' or 'the underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength."' Id. (no citation given for the quoted language). Appellants' Specification describes a seat frame assembly as including "a plurality of members joined together to form the structure" that "may have a variety of known or otherwise appropriate configurations." Spec. ,r,r 24, 27. The Specification is very inclusive when describing what can be considered part of the seat frame assembly and lists a seat back frame portion, a seat base frame portion, 3 Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 various support members, a recliner mechanism, attachment members, and states that it "may also include other features." Id. ,r,r 24, 25, 27, 31. Appellants attempt to distinguish the claimed frame members by stating that the claims are directed to a "conventional body on frame structure," whereas Gupta is "a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure in which the panels are stretched skins that must bear both tensile and compressive loads." Appeal Br. 7. However, this argument is not commensurate with the claims which make no such distinction. Next, Appellants identify element 156 as a mounting portion "employed for maintaining the seat back in a generally upright position." Id. Appellants argue that such a mounting portion does not fit within the definition of a frame. Id. We disagree. During examination, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( citations omitted). As noted above, Appellants' Specification takes an inclusive view as to what is to be considered part of the frame, down to a recliner mechanism and attachment members. See also Ans. 4. There does not appear to be any relevant difference between Gupta's mounting portion and the recliner mechanism or attachment member in Appellants' Specification. Both would have been considered part of the seat frame assembly under the teachings of Appellants' Specification. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellants also argue that Gupta "Figures 11 A - 11 E illustrate various strikers that can be used in the mounting portion 156, and do not illustrate interface spots for application of an adhesive as indicated by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 7. However, at least Gupta Figures 1 lB and 1 lE do 4 Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 illustrate overlapping portions of 156 and 12 that are secured together. Further, Appellants admit that "Gupta in view of Beyer et al. suggests that the panels [ 14, 16] of the seat back assembly [ 12] of Gupta et al. can be joined together using an adhesive laser welding technique." Reply Br. 3. As the Examiner has found that the panels are part of the frame, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellants also argue that "Beyer et al. do [sic] not teach or suggest using a laser welder to heat and cure an adhesive to join seat frame members." Appeal Br. 8. However, this argument is moot in view of Appellants' admission in the Reply Brief discussed above and our agreement with the Examiner that Gupta's panel member forms part of a frame assembly. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 and its dependents which are not separately argued. Claims 18-20 Claim 18 is independent, and claims 19 and 20 depend therefrom. Concerning claims 18 and 20, Appellants argue that: The rejection does not account for ... "a conformable tab of the first seat frame member positioned over a bond spot on the second seat frame member, the conformable tab being less rigid than the bond spot" or the adhesives being positioned "between the bond spot and the conformable tab." Appeal Br. 9. In response, the Examiner clarifies that "the conformable tab 160" is shown in Figure 11 C "over a bond spot" and with "a thickness smaller than 5 Appeal2017-009717 Application 13/265,514 the first and second seat frame member and therefore is less rigid than the bond spot ( of the first and second seat frame members)." Ans. 5. Without further explanation, Appellants argue that "Gupta et al. expressly state [sic] that element 160 is a flange of a striker 154, not a conformable tab of a seat frame member." Reply Br. 4. Though Gupta does "state that element 160 is a flange of a striker 154" Appellants do not identify where it states that it is "not a conformable tab of a seat frame member." Id. Further, the fact that Gupta calls element 160 by a particular name does not show why it would not have been considered a conformable tab by one of skill in the art as found by the Examiner. For these reasons, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 6-14 and 18-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6