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 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 11-30 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 11 recites the limitation "the vehicle frame" in lines 9, 11, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the claim recites “the at least one holder being arranged on a side…” in line 4. As the holder is introduced as “arrangeable or… arranged,” it is unclear if this language is intended to narrow that specification (i.e. must the holder be arranged rather than arrangeable?).
At least claims 12, 14-16, 21, 27, and 30 similarly refer to “the vehicle frame.”
Claim 23 recites the limitation "a motor vehicle" in line 3. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the tilting vehicle previously recited or if it is a new limitation. Further, the claim recites “a vehicle frame,” which appears to further distinguish the holder (which is not related to the frame in the amended claims).
Claims 12-30 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 23, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott (US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0006159).
Regarding claim 11, Scott discloses a seat device for a tilting vehicle (a motorcycle is viewed as such), comprising: a seat bench (58) having at least one holder (78), by which the seat bench is arrangeable or is arranged on a vehicle component of the tilting vehicle (this is the general arrangement), the at least one holder being arranged on a side of the tilting vehicle facing a direction of travel and by which movement of the seat bench parallel to a vertical axis and to a transverse axis is limited (i.e. the connection is at a front end of the seat and restrains the seat vertically and laterally); at least one coupling unit (including at least 90, 98, 114, 126) which is fixable or is fixed on a side of the seat bench facing away from the direction of travel (i.e. rear of the holder, etc.), by which coupling unit the seat bench is fixable or is fixed indirectly or directly to the vehicle frame so as to be movable to a limited extent (it allows some horizontal movement; see figures), wherein the coupling unit comprises at least one first coupler (the lower, rear end of 114 for instance) fixed indirectly or directly to the seat bench, at least one second coupler (98 for instance) fixed to the vehicle frame, and at least one first movement clearance device (90 for instance) which is arranged between the first coupler and second coupler and by which the seat bench is movable to a limited extent relative to the vehicle frame, at least in or obliquely to the transverse axis of the tilting vehicle, by movement of the first coupler relative to the second coupler (the shape of 94 in 90 for instance would provide at least minimal movement in the transverse direction at least in the forward position).
Regarding claim 12, Scott further discloses the coupling unit further comprises: at least one rod- or strip-shaped, flexurally rigid, spacer (of 114) which is used to fix the seat bench indirectly or directly to the vehicle frame, and which is arranged between the seat bench and the vehicle frame and, at one end of which, the first coupler or the second coupler is arranged (see figures).
Regarding claim 13, Scott further discloses the spacer extends in or counter to the direction of travel from an end of the seat bench facing away from the direction of travel (i.e. it extends in rearwardly; see figures).
Regarding claim 14, Scott further discloses the coupling unit further comprises: at least one fastener (fixing 114 to 62; see at least paragraph 19), by which the spacer is fixable or is fixed to the seat bench or to the vehicle frame on a side of the spacer opposite the first movement clearance device (at an upper side for instance).
Regarding claim 23, Scott further discloses the holder by which the seat bench is arrangeable or is arranged on a vehicle component of a motor vehicle or on a vehicle frame on a side facing the direction of travel, is configured as a hook or eyelet and in which the seat bench is arrangeable so as to engage therein with an eyelet or a hook formed in a corresponding manner (hook 78 engages with an eyelet formed at 82).
Regarding claim 27, Scott further discloses the coupling unit is positioned inward toward a center of the tilting vehicle (see figures) such that vibrations transmitted from the vehicle frame to the seat bench are reduced (the arrangement would at least be capable of such function).
Regarding claim 30, Scott further discloses the seat bench is movable to a limited extent relative to the vehicle frame obliquely to the transverse axis of the tilting vehicle by movement of the first coupler relative to the second coupler (the device would at least be capable of this function).
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(s) 15-20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Kishi et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0257115).
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 26, Scott discloses a seat device as explained above including at least two spaced-apart fasteners aligned along a longitudinal axis of the spacer (see figures, paragraph 19, etc.) by which the spacer is fixable or is fixed to the seat bench or to the vehicle frame but does not disclose a second movement clearance device. Kishi discloses a related device including multiple movement clearance devices (32, 35, 45, etc.) assigned to fasteners and arrangeable or arranged between a fastener and a mounting of a seat bench or a mounting of the vehicle frame, and by which the seat bench is movable to a limited extent relative to the vehicle frame, at least in or obliquely to a transverse axis of a vehicle, by movement of the fastener relative to the mounting (this would be the general arrangement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide clearance devices as taught by Kishi in Scott’s device because this could improve user comfort and safety. Note that while the combination is viewed as providing the arrangement of components as in claim 26 based on the arrangement of the components of the reference devices, even if this were not clear, rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claims 17-20, Scott discloses and/or renders obvious a seat device as explained above but may not disclose details of the clearance devices. Kishi discloses a related device with movement clearance devices (32, 35, 45, etc. as above) comprising dampers (they would function as such), wherein the dampers are elastic grommets, an elastically deformable or dimensionally stable bushing, and/or a step pin (at the very least as in 45). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide clearance devices as taught by Kishi in Scott’s device because this could improve user comfort and safety. Note further that even if the combination did not clearly provide the devices numbered and arranged as claimed, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and safety.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Schram. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0273122). Scott discloses a seat device as explained above but does not disclose a damping element. Schram discloses a related device including a damping unit comprising at least one damping element (56) which is arrangeable or is arranged on a seat bench and/or on a vehicle frame or a vehicle component, is positionable with its free end touching the vehicle frame or the vehicle component and/or the seat bench, and by which a force acting along a vertical axis is damped (this is the general arrangement with dampers 56 arranged between the seat and frame), wherein the damping element is configured to permit sliding movement of the vehicle frame relative to the seat bench when the damping element is fixed to the seat bench (the device would at least be capable of such operation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide damping elements as taught by Schram in Scott’s device because this could improve user comfort and safety. Note that while Schram further appears to provide the elements shaped as recited in claims 22 and 29 (see at least Figure 3 for instance), even if this were not the case, changes in shape require only routine skill in the art and the claimed shapes are well-known (see US 8523154 to Fujiwara and US 2006/0244188 to Johnson for instance). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide elements shaped as claimed based on normal variation to improve performance, safety, and comfort for users.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Regarding claim 24, Scott discloses a tilting vehicle comprising an engine and the seat device according to claim 11 but does not specify a type of engine. Boxer engines are old and well-known in tilting vehicles and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such an arrangement based on normal vehicle design choices to accommodate user performance and comfort expectations.
Regarding claim 25, Scott discloses a seat device as explained above including the spacer carrying at least the first coupler at an end of the spacer arranged on the side of the seat bench facing away from the direction of travel (see figures) but may not clearly disclose the spacer also carrying the first movement clearly device. Duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the are and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve performance and comfort for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior 35 USC 112 issues have been addressed, and that Scott does not disclose at least one first movement clearance device by which the seat bench is movable to a limited extend relative to the frame by movement of the first coupler relative to the second at least in or obliquely to the transverse axis.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 issues, while Applicant may have addressed the bulk of the prior issues, the current amendments introduced new 35 USC 112 issues as noted above.
Regarding the rejections in view of Scott, it is acknowledged that the design of the invention may differ from that of Scott, but it is maintained that Scott’s device nevertheless meets the current claim limitations. At a bare minimum, Scott’s device would allow movement as claimed (i.e. including “one first movement clearance device by which the seat bench is movable to a limited extend relative to the frame by movement of the first coupler relative to the second at least in or obliquely to the transverse axis”) during an installation as member 90 is shaped to allow relative movement of the seat and frame while engaged, which would provide the relative coupler movement as claimed. Applicant appears to acknowledge as much in the provided remarks. Even assembled, the specification of limited movement would appear to cover even the most minute motion (in that a limit is there to prevent motion).
Regarding Applicant’s further assertions regarding the specifics of the first and second coupler (i.e. motion therebetween and the positioning of the movement clearance device), it is again noted that the Scott device can differ from the invention while still meeting the claim limitations. In particular, the couplers need not be immediately adjacent and/or separated only by the movement clearance device to meet the limitations as currently set forth.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636