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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The amendment filed 10/20/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claims 18 and 19 now both newly recite internal dimensions of the recess correspond to “a width, length, and height” of external dimensions of the assembly where the specification as originally filed disclose only the internal dimensions of the receptacle can correspond to the external dimensions of the assembly and nothing more. There is no support for a width, length, and height as now provided.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended Independent Claims 18-19 both now include the limitation of the internal dimensions of the recess correspond to “a width, length, and height” of external dimensions of the assembly which is not enabled by the original disclosure. As such, the terms represent new matter and have not been treated as limitations in the claim language for the purpose of examination.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 14-17, 26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 694, as applied above, in view of GB 899.
For claim 11, EP 3243694 discloses an assembly (partial frame 8) for a vehicle, comprising:
two adjustment rails (19,20), arranged spaced apart and extending in parallel, for a seat of the vehicle and
at least one transverse strut (15,16) extending transversely to the adjustment rails,
which strut rigidly connecting the two adjustment rails to one another ([0016]);
wherein each adjustment rail comprises an inner hollow profile (28,29) arranged within an outer hollow profile (26,27);
wherein the at least one transverse strut (15,16) is engaged with and indirectly fixedly coupled to each outer hollow profile (26,2) in a sliding fashion; and
wherein each inner hollow profile (28,29) forms a linear guide for slidably receiving seat interfaces of the seat therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
EP 694 discloses the purpose and desirability of the outer hollow profile (26,27) being to “stabilize” the adjustment rail “against deformation” but lacks the newly recited limitation that the adjustment rail is enclosed on three sides. This feature is taught by GB 2531899 which includes a chassis structure having a rail with outer and inner hollow profiles (FIG.5, below), the outer hollow profile providing support on three sides (both lateral sides as well as a bottom side) and thereby enclosing the inner hollow profile.
PNG
media_image3.png
252
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have and with a reasonable expectation of success to have included with the with the outer hollow profile (26,27) of EP 694 an additional lower support as taught by GB 899 to fully enclose the adjustment rail on three sides in order to add additional structural and stabilizing support to the adjustment rail against deformation.
For claim 14, the at least one transverse strut (15,16) is arranged between the two adjustment rails and/or has a rectangular cross section.
For claims 15 and 26, the assembly provides for a plurality of trans-verse struts (15,16).
For claim 16, the at least one transverse strut is aligned with each adjustment rail with respect to a Z-direction of the assembly perpendicular to the at least one transverse strut and the adjustment rail.
For claims 17, and 29-30, the assembly has at least one connecting strut (15,16) projecting laterally outwards from an adjustment rail (19,20).
Claims 12, 22, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 694, as applied above, in view of DE 20308465 (DE 465).
For claim 12, the outer and inner hollow profiles of EP 694 have rectangular cross-sections but the inner hollow profile fails to include at least one beveled edge, a feature taught by DE 465.
As seen in FIGS.1 and 3, DE 465 provides a seat rail having a hollow profile and including an angled corrugation (21) in the wall of the rail which increases the stability of the rail, especially in the case of upwards acting forces that may be encountered in the event of a crash.
PNG
media_image4.png
160
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have and with a reasonable expectation of success to have included with the inner hollow profile of EP 694 a beveled edge as taught by DE 465 in order to provide more rigidity to the inner hollow profile in the event of a crash.
Claims 18-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 694, as applied above, in view of Line et al. (11214173).
EP 694 discloses the claimed invention including the recited assembly and a body shell structure (implicit) with the assembly being aligned, in relation to a Z-direction, with the body shell structure.
EP 694 fails to include a recess within a floor of the body structure, the recess being sized and shaped to accommodate the assembly therein such that internal dimensions of the recess correspond to external dimensions of the assembly (claim 18) and further having a flat floor plate with slots for receiving seat interfaces therethrough where the flat floor plate is in contact with the body shell structure and assembly (claim 19).
Line et al. discloses a body shell structure and seat assembly (FIGS.1-2) and more specifically teaches providing the seating assembly (14) with rails (34, FIG.4) within a recess (110) sized and shaped to fully receive the assembly therein (see how void 100 is the same width as the assembly and larger than a length thereof, FIG.3, which allows assembly to be positioned therein).
Line et al. further includes a flat floor plate (cover 92) with slots (94) through which a seat interface can extend (FIG.3), the floor plate being in contact with the body shell structure as well as the assembly.
PNG
media_image5.png
504
587
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the assembly of EP 694 within a body shell structure having a suitably sized recess and floor plate in order to maximize head space for seated occupants and provide safety to and from the assembly while also preventing debris from entering into the sunken recess and rails.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to EP 3243694, applicant argues the reference fails to teach or suggest every feature recited. Examiner presents (above) a new 103 combination type rejection where GB 899 teaches enclosing on three sides for structural stabilization.
With regard to the limitations of the transverse strut fixedly coupled, as applicant has correctly noted the outer hollow profile (26,27) is screwed or welded to the inner hollow profiles (28,29) which are slidably connected to elements 13-16 and in this way, at least, the outer hollow profile (26,27) is fixedly coupled to the at least one transverse strut as broadly recited and interpreted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JPH 0481372 additionally discloses a rail with outer and inner hollow profiles (FIG.1, below, right).
PNG
media_image6.png
301
443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, JP 2011011613 provides for outer and inner profiles as seen in FIG.6.\
PNG
media_image7.png
166
300
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614