Patent Application
20240217405
This invention generally relates to multi-passenger vehicle seats and their seat backs, and more particularly to multi-passenger vehicle bus seats and their seat backs.
Multi-passenger vehicles include, for example, busses, coach busses, school busses, recreational vehicles, boats, ships, trains, and aircraft. Typically, multi-passenger vehicles have mounted therein passenger and driver seats. The seats are manufactured to comply with various federal and state safety standards. It will be readily apparent that the invention is applicable to seats that may be either passenger or driver seats for multi-passenger vehicles. Therefore, while the background and disclosure below discuss bus passenger seats and their safety requirements it is not the intent to limit the invention only to bus passenger seats.
School bus passenger seats are manufactured to comply with various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards including those set forth in 9 CFR § 571.302—Standard No. 302; Flammability of interior materials (FMVSS 302). The purpose of FMVSS 302 as recited therein is to, “reduce the deaths and injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires, especially those originating in the interior of the vehicle from sources such as cigarettes.”
Additionally, school bus passenger seats must be compliant with 49 CFR § 571.22—Standard No. 222; School bus passenger seating and crash protection (FMVSS 222). The purpose of the FMVSS 222 safety standard as recited therein is to, “reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving structures.” This purpose is addressed in the safety standard by setting forth requirements that the seat including their seat backs, must meet, among other requirements, size, loading, energy, absorption and deflection requirements. FMVSS 222 also defines various terms of art incorporated as if fully set forth herein, for example a school bus passenger seat is defined therein as a seat in a school bus, other than a driver's seat.
Multi-passenger vehicle seats have a frame which receives a seat cushion, a back cushion and a seat back. A vertical portion of the frame therefore is sandwiched between the back cushion and the seat back. The seat cushion is understood to mean a horizontally extending portion of the seat that contacts the passenger's thighs and buttocks as they seat themselves in the seat. The back cushion is understood to mean a vertically extending portion of the seat that contacts the passenger's spine as they are seated in the seat. The seat back is understood to mean a vertically extending portion of the seat that is located on the side of the frame opposite that of the back cushion. In multi-passenger vehicles with seats arranged facing a front of the vehicle, a passenger is usually seated in one seat while they face the seat back of the seat in front of them.
Typically, seat backs for bus passenger seats meet the various safety requirements by constructing the seat backs with a material such as foam, an attenuating, energy absorbing, material that acts as a passive restraint. The passive restraint is a generally understood as a passenger crash protection provided by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have these energy-absorbing seat backs. In the event of an accident, the seat back material absorbs the impact of a passenger who might be thrown forward into the seat back and thereby lessen or prevent injury to the passenger.
Seat back safety is typically degraded and no longer complies with the safety requirements where the bus has been in an accident resulting in a passenger or object has impacted the seat back. However, accidents are not the only means by which the seat back safety can be degraded below compliance with FMVSS 222. During regular, day to day use in the field, any number of forces act on the seat back to degrade its properties such that the seat and its seat back no longer complies with FMVSS 222 even though the bus has never been in an accident. For example, the seat back may be kicked by passengers or subject to other forces during horseplay or impacted by items such as book bags. These forces may compress, break, puncture, tear, rip, or crack the material making up the seat back. After experiencing this wear and tear, the seat back may no longer meet the safety requirements of FMVSS 222. When the seat backs are no longer compliant with FMVSS 222 they must be repaired or replaced which drives up the cost of maintaining the bus and its passenger seats.
Manufacturers producing seat backs that are compliant with FMVSS 222 may be interested in lowering manufacturing costs but not in producing seats that exceed the FMVSS 222 safety requirements and are compliant longer with FMVSS 222 with use in the field as such efforts would likely lead to the higher costs they seek to avoid. Indeed, while current seat backs comply with FMVSS 222 at the time of manufacture and installation, the wear of the seat backs from use in the field may not be of interest to manufacturers because they can already offer a solution that is accepted in the industry and by federal safety standards. For a seat that is not compliant with FMVSS 222, it can either be replaced or the seat back can be replaced with a new seat and seat back that is compliant.
In addition to the foregoing, in order for the foam of the seat backs to meet FMVSS 302, typically a flame retardant material is applied as a coating over the foam's outermost surface or a layer of material is inserted between the cover surrounding the foam and the foam of the seat back in order for the bus seat to meet FMVSS 302. This further coating and or additional layer of material of the seat back increases the cost of producing the vehicle because of the additional cost involved in purchasing the material and actually installing or applying it during the manufacturing process. Moreover, the risk to the health of passengers, particularly children on school bases may be increased due to exposure to further chemicals.
Embodiments of the invention provide a seat and a seat back for the seat of a multi-passenger vehicle. As noted above, multi-passenger vehicles include, for example, busses, coach busses, school busses, recreational vehicles, boats and ships, trains, and aircraft. While school bus seats will be discussed in preferred embodiments, it is not the intent to limit the invention only to school bus passenger seats, nor to limit the invention to passenger seats, as driver seats may also benefit from the invention. The seat backs include polyurethane foam and expanded polyethylene (EPE) having physical properties that heretofore have not been used nor arranged as in the disclosed embodiments of the invention. In use, the seat and seat backs are compliant with FMVSS 222 and FMVSS 302 for longer periods of time than has been heretofore known. Moreover, while the seat and seat backs are safer, the increased safety provided by embodiments of the invention should be achieved without increased cost to the manufacturer.
The seats having the seat backs of the disclosed embodiments are compliant at manufacture with FMVSS 222 and 302, and once in use in the field, that is, after they have been installed in the school bus, based on the studies undertaken, it is believed they will have a greater longevity in compliance with those FMVSS standards than those currently in use. By greater longevity, it is meant the embodiments of the seats having seat backs of the instant invention, once installed and subject to the wear and tear during use, will remain compliant longer with FMVSS 222 longer than those in currently in use. Therefore, it is believed passengers seated in seats with the seat backs of the instant invention will be safer for longer than what current seats with seat backs provide.
Comparison studies that support the belief that the seats with the seat backs of the instant invention comply longer with FMVSS 222 will be presented in the Detailed Description. Moreover, the seat backs do not need to have their foams coated with a flame-retardant chemical or have a further layer applied over their outer surfaces to be compliant with FMVSS 302, thus resulting in a cost savings for manufactures who need not pay to apply or affix such a flame retardant layer to or over the outermost surfaces of the seat back. Further, because such fire retardant spray or layer is not necessary it is believed the seat backs are safer for passengers because the passengers are exposed to less chemicals.
In one aspect, the invention provides a seat for a multi-passenger vehicle. The seat includes a seat cushion mounted on a frame of the seat, a back cushion mounted to the frame, and a seat back mounted on an opposite side of the frame. The back cushion and the seat back extend transversely away from the seat cushion. The seat back includes a head impact portion and a leg impact portion. The leg impact portion includes expanded polyethylene (EPE) foam having a second density between 1.0 and 1.6 pcf.
In another aspect, the invention provides a seat back for a multi-passenger vehicle. The seat back includes a head impact portion and a leg impact portion. The head impact portion includes polyurethane foam having a first density between 3.1 and 3.7 pounds in a cubic foot (pcf) and an indentation force deflection (IFD) between 67 and 83 pounds at 25% compression.
In yet another aspect, the invention provides a method of manufacture of a seat for a multi-passenger vehicle. The method includes the steps of attaching a seat back to a seat frame. The seat back includes a head impact portion and a leg impact portion. The head impact portion comprises polyurethane foam having a first density between 3.1 and 3.7 pounds in a cubic foot (pcf) and an indentation force deflection (IFD) of between 67 and 83 pounds at 25% compression.
In an embodiment, the leg impact portion comprises expanded polyethylene (EPE) foam having a second density between 1.0 and 1.6 pcf.
In an embodiment, the first density is 3.4 pcf and the IFD is 75 pounds at 25% compression.
In an embodiment, the second density is 1.3 pcf.
In an embodiment, the multi-passenger vehicle is a bus and the seat is a passenger seat.
In an embodiment, the head impact portion is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 222 (FMVSS 222) for a contactable surface of a head protection zone.
In an embodiment, the leg impact portion is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 222 (FMVSS 222) as a leg protection zone.
In an embodiment, the head impact portion defines an impact body having a first face facing away from a second face, and a first thickness defined between the first face and the second face between 1⅝ and 2 inches.
In an embodiment, the leg impact portion defines a knee body having a third face facing away from a fourth face and a second thickness defined between the third face and the fourth face between 2 and 2.5 inches.
In an embodiment, the seat back includes a cover covering the head impact portion and the leg impact portion.
In an embodiment, the cover contacts the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion and the cover contacts an EPE foam of the leg impact portion.
In an embodiment, the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion and the EPE foam of the leg impact portion are flame retardant, compliant with FMVSS 302, and are free of any flame retardant coating over their outermost surfaces.
In an embodiment, the head impact portion includes polyurethane foam having a first density between 3.1 and 3.7 pounds in a cubic foot (pcf) and an indentation force deflection (IFD) of between 67 and 83 at 25% compression.
In an embodiment of the method, the method includes the step of covering the seat back with a cover, the cover in contact with the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion and in contact with an EPE foam of the leg impact portion.
In an embodiment the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion and the EPE foam of the leg impact portion are flame retardant, compliant with FMVSS 302, and are free of any flame retardant coating over their outermost surfaces.
In an embodiment, the head impact portion and the leg impact portions are compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 222 (FMVSS 222) for a contactable surface of a head protection zone and a leg protection zone. The polyurethane foam of the head impact portion is compliant with FMVSS 302.
Other aspects, objectives and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
The accompanying drawings incorporated in and forming a part of the specification illustrate several aspects of the present invention and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention. In the drawings:
While the invention will be described in connection with certain preferred embodiments, there is no intent to limit it to those embodiments. On the contrary, the intent is to cover all alternatives, modifications and equivalents as included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
Turning now to the drawings, there is illustrated in
The school bus 100 includes a seating configuration 102 having passenger seats 104 spaced from one another and spaced apart from a driver's seat 106 at a front 108 of the school bus 100. The passenger seats 104 may be bench seats or bucket seats. The seating configuration 102 may vary depending on the size of the school bus 100 and its permissible occupancy as well as a passenger seat width 104 of the bus seat 102 as set forth in FMVSS 222. Accordingly, both the seating configuration 102 and the passenger seat 104 dimensions may vary provided the final dimensions comply with FMVSS 222 and FMVSS 302.
Moreover, it is not the intent of the instant invention to limit use to a passenger seat 104 with its seat back 114 to a passenger seat for a school bus. Indeed, the bus passenger seat 104 described herein and the seat backs 114 while having dimensions and properties compliant with FMVSS 222 and 302 might also be compliant with various safety provisions and regulations for other multi-passenger vehicles. By way of non-limiting example, the passenger seat 104 may be useable in aircraft, boats, ships, recreational vehicles (RV's), or trains or as driver's seats, provided there use therein is compliant with the relative regulatory requirements.
With respect then to
The passenger seats 104, 112 each have a seat cushion width 118 that is 17½ inches and a seat cushion length 120 of 17½ inches. A seat cushion height 122 is 18½ inches above a floor 124 of a vehicle, for example the bus 100 (
With respect to
The head impact portion 138 is made up of polyurethane foam having a density between 3.1 and 3.7 pounds in a cubic foot (pcf) and an indentation force deflection (IFD) between 67 and 83 pounds at 25% compression. In a preferred embodiment the density is 3.4 pcf for the polyurethane foam and has an IFD of 75 pounds at 25% compression. The polyurethane foam is commercially available for purchase as MOLECULON® from Reiss Industries, LLC of Watertown Wisconsin, a subsidiary of Reiss International, Ltd. The polyurethane foam properties are shown in Table 1 below.
The leg impart portion 140 of the seat back 114 includes expanded polyethylene (EPE) foam having a density between 1.0 and 1.6 pcf. In a preferred embodiment the density is 1.3 pcf for the EPE. Testing as will be discussed, failed at higher densities. The EPE is commercially available for purchase, for example as ARPAK®. A partial Material Physical Property Information for ARPAK® is shown in TABLE 2 below for the density range of 1.3 pcf to 1.9 pcf (20 to 30 g/l) although it can be purchased at densities up to 4.6 pcf (74 g/l) which are excluded from TABLE 2 below.
The leg impact portion 140 in a preferred embodiment is glued to head impact portion 138. Other attachment means can be used as readily understood by those skilled in the art, provided the attachment means result in compliance with the FMVSS provisions discussed above. So too, they can be manufactured as a single piece comprising the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion 138 and the EPE of the leg impact portion 140.
The head impact portion 138 is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 222 (FMVSS 222) for a contactable surface of a head protection zone. While the terms and definitions of FMVSS 222 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein as a matter a ready reference, FMVSS 222 at section S5.3.1.1 defines the head protection zones in each vehicle as the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus sidewall, window, or door structure and which, in relation to that seat and its seating reference point, are enclosed by the following planes; (a) Horizontal planes 305 mm and 1016 mm above the seating reference point; (b) A vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard (aisle side) edge of the seat; and (c) A vertical longitudinal plane 83 mm inboard of the outboard edge of the seat; (d) Vertical transverse planes through and 762 mm forward of the reference point.
A visualization of the “seat back contactable surface lying within head protection zone” is seen for example in FIG. 13 of the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection TP-222-05, dated Oct. 21, 2011, which is incorporated as if fully set forth herein and hereafter referred to as TP-222-05.
S4 defines a contactable surface as “any surface within the zone specified in S5.3.1.1 that is contactable from any direction by the test device described in S6.6, except any surface on the front of a seat back or restraining barrier 76 mm or more below the top of the seat back or restraining barrier.”
Still with respect to
S5.3.2.1 states, “The leg protection zones of each vehicle are those parts of the school bus passenger seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by horizontal planes 305 mm above and 102 mm below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat back or restraining barrier.” A visualization of the regulatory defined “Leg Protection Zone” can be seen for example in FIG. 18 of TP-222-05.
The seating reference point SRP (also referred to as SgRP) is also explained in TP-222-05 as, “The unique design H-point, as defined in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100, revised June 1984, “Motor Vehicle Dimensions” (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), which: (1) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle; (2) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1100, revised June 1984, “Motor Vehicle Dimensions” (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), established relative to the designed vehicle structure; (3) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and (4) Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95th percentile leg described in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J826, revised May 1987, “Devices for Use in Defining and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodation” (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), or, if the drafting template with the 95th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position. (571.3).”
The polyurethane of the head impact portion 138 defines an impact body 142 having a front face 144 facing away from a rear face 146, and in an embodiment a thickness 147 defined between the front face and the rear face between 1⅝ and 2 inches. The EPE of the leg impact portion 140 defines a knee body 148 having a third face 150 facing away from a fourth face 152 and a thickness 153 defined between the third face 150 and the fourth face 152 of between 2 and 2.5 inches.
Because the materials used to form the impact body 142 and the knee body 148 are fully comply with the flame retardant requirements of FMVSS 302, as well as the more stringent vertical burn/flammability testing, no flame retardant coating has to be sprayed over those materials. Further no other material, that is laminate or layer of material has to be placed between the cover 113 (
As discussed previously, it is believed passengers seated in seats 104 with the seat backs 114 of the instant invention will be safer for longer than what current seat backs provide. Users, for example school districts providing school buses or contractors providing school bus services for school districts, should have a cost savings from having to change out or replace seats and seat backs so as to return them to compliance with FMVSS 222. Moreover, the passengers on the seats 104 with the seat back 114 of the physical properties of polyurethane and EPE and as arranged as discussed above should be safer than that heretofore known because they are compliant longer with FMVSS 222. The seat backs 114 absorb the energy of impact of the passengers longer than the seat backs heretofore known. This fully meets the purpose of FMVSS 222 to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving structures.
Some of the comparison studies that support the belief that the seats 104 with the seat backs 114 of the instant invention comply longer with FMVSS 222 than prior art seats and seat backs are shown below in TABLE 3 and TABLE 4. TABLE 3 shows the results of the leg protection zone testing performed on the seat back 104 with seat back 114 pursuant to S5.3.2.2 of FMVSS 222. S5.3.2.2 states, “When any point on the rear surface of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier within any zone specified in S5.3.2.1 is impacted from any direction at 4.9 m/s [16 ftlb] by the knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 2,669 N [600 ftlb] and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 1,935 mm2.”
Seat back 114 was tested with leg impact portion 140 having the leg impact zone made up of EPE with a density of 1.3 pcf (see TABLE 2 for the EPE properties). Hit areas K3 see character reference 154, K6 (156) and, and K11 (158) (
a. EPE passed all testing through K11E
TABLE 4 below shows the leg protection zone testing results of a prior art seat back having a leg protection zone made up of EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) Type II the properties of which are seen in TABLE 5 below.
TABLE 5 prior art leg protection zone EPS Type II properties. The manufacturer's material data sheets advise the consumer that EPS is combustible and should not be exposed to flame or other ignition sources. EPS should be covered with a thermal barrier or otherwise installed in accordance with applicable building code requirements. As previously discussed this flammability is not present in the seat back 114 having EPE foam of 1.3 pcf. As discussed above, the knee body 148 of the instant application made up of EPE 1.3 pcf is fully compliant with the flame retardant requirement of FMVSS 302 without a thermal barrier or coating or layer unlike the prior art material of EPS. Additionally, the data sheets for EPS advise it is susceptible to damage by petroleum based solvents and their vapors and should be protected with vapor barrier covering and/or use compatible adhesives when applicable.
As seen in comparing TABLE 3 and TABLE 4, the leg protection zone testing results show that the seat back 104 with leg protection zone 140 made up knee body 148 of EPE of 1.3 pcf having the properties, as shown in TABLE 2, of the instant invention (results shown in TABLE 3) outperformed the prior art seat backs (results shown in TABLE 4) having a seat back with a leg protection zone of EPS, having the properties as seen in TABLE 5. The EPS consistently showed poor performance in durability testing results of multiple impacts. This is due in part to the EPS material fracturing or taking a compression set as shown in the pictures of
The leg protection zone testing results as shown in TABLE 3 show the knee body 148 of EPE of 1.3 pcf (properties TABLE 2) of the instant invention consistently showed superior performance characteristics in durability testing versus the EPS (TABLE 4 results, TABLE 5 properties) after multiple impacts. Throughout the test areas where the EPS material eventually failed testing, the EPE outperformed the EPS material by 50% to 200% better. In areas where the EPS material did not fail in this testing, the EPE material produced consistently 20% to 25% lower readings and a better benefit to the consumer with greater safety for the passenger utilizing the seats 104 with seat backs 148.
The test results show that the EPE material (TABLE 2) is a superior product over the EPS material (TABLE 5) in protecting the consumer/passenger as shown in test results of FMVSS 222. Additionally after repeated cycle testing of as little as a few impacts, the EPS fractured or took a compression set where the EPE material held its shape and its intended performance. The long term durability and ability of the EPE to protect the consumer for an extended period of time is significantly greater than that of the EPS. After use in the field, the EPE would better protect the consumer insuring their safety and protecting them better in the event of a crash from injury.
The overall assumptions that repeated testing of the EPS would result in fractured material and catastrophic failure is supported in these test results. Additionally, the EPS testing showed compression sets of the EPS material resulting in failure of the required maximum 600 lbs resistance force. These two conditions are representative of real world conditions and could result in failed testing in the field after little use by the consumer. The EPE material shows that it does not take a compression set and does not fracture or result in a catastrophic failure when repeatedly tested. Therefore the real world conditions of impact by the consumer would result in the EPE product continuing to pass testing. This would insure a highly engineered solution to the requirements of FMVSS 222 in real world applications.
In further support of the greater safety provided by the passenger seat 104 see the test results on the head impact portion 138 with the impact body 142 of polyurethane having a density between 3.1 and 3.7 pounds in a cubic foot (pcf) and an indentation force deflection (IFD) between 67 and 83 pounds at 25% compression, and more particularly 3.4 pcf and 75 pounds, with the properties as shown in TABLE 1. TABLES 6 and 7 below show the results of the head protection zone testing pursuant to FMVSS 222 sections S5.3.1.2, “head form impact requirement” and S5.3.1.3, “head form force distribution” conducted on both the “current foam,” that is the foam of the prior art and the “new foam”, that is the polyurethane foam of the head impact portion 138 having the properties shown in TABLE 1 above.
S5.3.1.1. states, “Any contactable surface of the vehicle within any zone specified in S5.3.1.1 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3. However, a surface area that has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S5.3.”
S5.3.1.2 sets forth the head form impact requirements as, “When any contactable surface of the vehicle within the zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from any direction at 6.7 m/s by the head form described in S6.6, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the expression [1t1−t2∫ 1t2 adt] 2.5 (t1−t2) shall not exceed 1,000 where “a” is the axial acceleration expressed as a multiple of “g” (the acceleration due to gravity), and “t1” and “t2” are any two points in time during the impact.
TABLE 6 below shows the results of the testing done pursuant to S5.3.1.2 on both the “Current Foam,” that is the foam of the prior art, and the “New Foam,” that is the foam of TABLE 1. The H impact points are illustrated in
S5.3.1.3 sets forth the requirements for the head form distribution, as, “when any contactable surface of the vehicle within the zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from any direction at 6.7 m/s by the head form described in S6.6, the energy necessary to deflect the impacted material shall be not less than 4.5 joules before the force level on the head form exceeds 667 N. When any contactable surface within such zones is impacted by the head form from any direction at 1.5 m/s the contact area on the head form surface shall be not less than 1,935 mm 2.”
TABLE 7 shows the results of the testing done pursuant to S5.3.1.3 on both the “Current Foam,” that is the foam of the prior art, and the “New Foam,” that is the polyurethane foam of having the properties as shown in TABLE 1. The H impact points are illustrated in
The longevity of the molded polyurethane foam having the properties shown in TABLE 1 underwent 100,000 cycle durability testing with little degradation of physical properties. Because initial test results showed significantly better performance than current production (current foam), durability testing was not necessary. The prior art foam, “current foam” as noted above is a combination of 2.2 pcf Polyethylene and 1.2 pcf polyurethane foam. The molded polyurethane foam of TABLE 1 is much more consistent since it is molded and far superior in physical properties per the FMVSS 222 testing. Additionally, the cost is much less since the there is no complex fabrication of two materials as there is with the current design.
In light of the foregoing testing it is believed the seat 104 having seat backs 114 having the properties of the polyurethan foam of TABLE 1 at the head impact portion 138 and the EPE 1.3 pcf having the properties as seen in TABLE 2 are compliant for longer with the safety requirements of FMVSS 222 than has been hereto for known and are therefore safer for passengers. Moreover, the materials of TABLE 1 and TABLE 2 of the seat backs 114 are fully compliant with the flame retardant requirements of FMVSS 302 without having any chemical sprays, coatings or laminates therewith and thus are safer, because there is less possibility of chemical exposure to passengers, and more economical for manufacturers because less materials (chemicals) are used in production than those seat backs heretofore known.
All references, including publications, patent applications, and patents cited herein are hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each reference were individually and specifically indicated to be incorporated by reference and were set forth in its entirety herein.
The use of the terms “a” and “an” and “the” and similar referents in the context of describing the invention (especially in the context of the following claims) is to be construed to cover both the singular and the plural, unless otherwise indicated herein or clearly contradicted by context. The terms “comprising,” “having,” “including,” and “containing” are to be construed as open-ended terms (i.e., meaning “including, but not limited to,”) unless otherwise noted. Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, unless otherwise indicated herein, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g., “such as”) provided herein, is intended merely to better illuminate the invention and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the invention unless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element as essential to the practice of the invention.
Preferred embodiments of this invention are described herein, including the best mode known to the inventors for carrying out the invention. Variations of those preferred embodiments may become apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the foregoing description. The inventors expect skilled artisans to employ such variations as appropriate, and the inventors intend for the invention to be practiced otherwise than as specifically described herein. Accordingly, this invention includes all modifications and equivalents of the subject matter recited in the claims appended hereto as permitted by applicable law. Moreover, any combination of the above-described elements in all possible variations thereof is encompassed by the invention unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context.
