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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference to Lardies (US 8313148) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The replacement drawing was received on 13 Oct 2025. This drawing is acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) (in figure 3) not mentioned in the description: 312a, 312b, 312c, 314, 316. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 newly recites the limitation "wherein the body portion is not elastomeric". While the specification provides examples of the materials that may be used for the body portion (¶ [0028]), the description fails to explicitly state that the body portion is “not elastomeric”. As such, this limitation is considered new matter.
Claim 18 newly recites the limitation “a distal-most point of the push button” to further define “the projecting member extending away from the distal end”. In light of the specification (¶ [0021], [0088]), the description is silent on the term “distal-most point” and fails to define which feature of the push button is the distal-most point to which the projection member is extending. Moreover, the figure illustrating the projecting member (fig. 3) appears to show that the engaging end of the projecting member itself would be the distal-most point of the push button, such that the recitation “from the distal end […] to a distal-most point of the push button” would fail to clearly and positively define said engaging end as the button’s distal-most point (rather, the limitation sets forth that the distal-most point is distinct from the projecting member’s engaging end). Accordingly, the newly presented limitation is considered new matter.
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) 1, 2, 5-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2190698) in view of Bouzid (FR 3035625).
Claim 1- Park discloses a push button comprising a body portion (100), the body portion comprising: a proximal end contactable by a user (via pressing protrusion 130), a distal end (see elements 200 & 300, fig. 4), and an elastic member (300) operably coupled to the distal end and arranged to engage a contact element of a structure (fig. 8 shows the surface of the structure contacting the engaged elastic member 300);
wherein the push button is operably mountable to the structure and movable in a first direction (pressed inward, fig. 2) from a first position in which the push button locks an adjustable component to the structure, to a second position in which the adjustable component is unlocked from the structure; and
wherein the elastic member is configured to provide a biasing force back towards the first position when the push button is moved towards the second position (col. 3: 14-21), and wherein the body portion (100) is not elastomeric.
Park teaches that the push button with the elastic member functions as a locking device that locks and unlocks with an adjustable component (headrest stay, figs. 1-2); wherein the elastic member (300) comprises a biasing spring that surrounds a protrusion (120) of the body portion’s distal end.
The difference between Park and the claimed invention is Park does not show or suggest that the elastic member (300) can be an elastomeric member.
Bouzid discloses a fixing device (10) of a structure (3), wherein the fixing device (figs. 2 & 5A) functions to lock and unlock with an adjustable component (5) of the structure, and wherein the fixing device includes an elastomeric member (52) configured to provide a biasing force. Specifically, Bouzid discloses the fixing device includes an elastic member (52) that is coupled to a housing (51) and comprises a biasing spring that surrounds a protrusion (not designated, shown best in figs. 5A & 5C); wherein Bouzid teaches the elastic member can be either a spring or an elastomer (pg. 9- second paragraph of the machine translation).
Accordingly, Bouzid teaches that it is known that a spring and an elastomer are functional equivalents for providing a member with a biasing force included in a locking device for an adjustable component of a structure, wherein the member is configured to surround a protrusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elastomeric member taught by Bouzid for the biasing spring taught by Park because both members were known equivalents for providing a biasing force in a locking device within the adjustable component art.
The substitution would have yielded the predictable result of providing an elastomeric member operably coupled to the push button’s body portion, wherein the elastomeric member provides a biasing force for the lock function of the push button.
Claim 2- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, wherein the elastomeric member taught by Bouzid would be deformed by the contact element of Park (fig. 8) to provide the biasing force back towards the first position.
Claim 5- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, wherein the elastomeric member (52) taught by Bouzid would include at least one projecting member extending away from Park’s distal end along a lengthwise axis, and wherein the at least one projecting member is configured as to be elastically compressed along the lengthwise axis to provide the biasing force (Park and Bouzid teach that the elastomer would surround Park’s protrusion 120, which defines the lengthwise axis, such that it would be compressed along said axis).
Claim 6- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 5, wherein Bouzid’s elastomeric member (52) would include a bellows portion (the compressible portion of the elastomeric member, fig. 5C) arranged so that a central axis of the bellows portion provides the lengthwise axis (according to the bellows portion substantially surrounding the axis-defining protrusion 120 of Park).
Claim 7- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, wherein the elastomeric member provides a biasing force. While Park and Bouzid do not explicitly disclose the elastomeric member would be partially deformed to provide a preloaded biasing force, this configuration is considered a matter of design choice since it would still yield the predictable result of providing a biasing force back towards the button’s first position and since achieving the configuration involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 8- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, further comprising at least one guide element (defined by the lateral perimeter of Park’s opening 110 between the body portion’s proximal and distal ends) engageable with a respective mating portion (defined by the lateral walls of the contact element, fig. 8) provided on the structure so as to constrain the push button to move linearly relative to the structure (figs. 2 & 9).
Claim 9- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, further comprising a stop member (including a notch and detent formation, figs. 6-8) configured to limit the push button at the first position when the biasing force moves the push button back to the first position (figs. 6-7 show the underside of Park’s button body portion includes a central detent adjacent the proximal end, and fig. 8 shows the contacting element has a “floor” that includes a central notch formed therein to limit the button movement).
Claim 10- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, wherein Bouzid teaches the elastomeric member comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (pg. 9- second paragraph of the machine translation).
Claim 11- Park, as modified by Bouzid, teaches the push button according to claim 1, wherein Park and Bouzid teach the elastomeric member would be coupled with the body portion via a protrusion of the body portion, and wherein Park discloses the goal of reducing all aspects of manufacturing their invention (pg. 5) and teaches using injection-molding to integrally form the components of the body portion (pp 3 & 5).
Park and Bouzid do not explicitly teach wherein the elastomeric member of Bouzid is co-molded with the body portion.
However, the method used to modify Park’s push button with Bouzid’s elastomeric member is considered a matter of design choice since selecting a process suitable for coupling the elastomeric member and the body portion involves only routine skill in the art; especially in light of Park’s teaching of using the method of injection molding to integrally couple all the components of the body portion (pg. 5).
Park teaches the body portion (100) is formed of plastic (pg. 4) by the process of injection-molding (pg. 5), and Bouzid teaches the elastic member may be formed of an elastomer (pg. 9). The claim limitation “co-molded” is known in the art to be an injection-molding process for integrating at least two different materials into a single component.
Based on these teachings and the general knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, selecting a co-molding process to integrally join the plastic body portion of Park with the elastomer member of Bouzid since the process would have been an obvious expedient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the process of co-molding in order to effectively couple the elastomeric member taught by Bouzid with the plastic body portion taught by Park in order to achieve Park’s goal of improving the manufacturing of the push button et al.
Claims 12- Park teaches an assembly (figs. 10-11) comprising a push button according to claim 1, moveably mounted therein; wherein the assembly is a headrest guide assembly (fig. 9) configured as a sleeve assembly and a locking mechanism, according to its function of locking the headrest stay in position after guiding the stay to said position, for a vehicle adjustable component (headrest, figs. 1 & 9).
Claim 13- Park teaches an assembly according to claim 12, wherein the assembly is mounted to a vehicle structure (seatback), and wherein the adjustable component (headrest) is mounted to the vehicle structure to be movable relative to both the vehicle structure and the assembly (fig. 1, pp 1 & 3).
Claims 14-16 – Park teaches the assembly according to claim 13, wherein the assembly is mounted to the adjustable component (fig. 9); wherein the adjustable component, including the assembly, is mounted to the vehicle structure (seatback) to be movable relative to the vehicle structure (fig. 1, pg. 3), wherein the vehicle structure is a vehicle seat; and wherein the adjustable component is a headrest (figs. 1 & 9).
Claim 18 (as best understood)- Park discloses a push button comprising a body portion (100), the body portion comprising: a proximal end contactable by a user (via pressing protrusion 130), a distal end (see elements 200 & 300, fig. 4), and an elastic member (300) operably coupled to the distal end and having a free end arranged to engage a contact element of a structure (fig. 8 shows the surface of the structure contacting the engaged elastic member 300);
wherein the push button is operably mountable to the structure and movable in a first direction (pressed inward, fig. 2) from a first position in which the push button locks an adjustable component to the structure, to a second position in which the adjustable component is unlocked from the structure; and
wherein the elastic member (300) includes at least one projecting member (a coil spring) that extends away from the distal end along a lengthwise axis and has the free end, which defines a distal-most point of the push button,
wherein the elastic member is configured to provide a biasing force back towards the first position when the push button is moved towards the second position (col. 3: 14-21), and
and wherein the at least one projecting member (300) is configured as to be elastically compressed along the lengthwise axis to provide the biasing force (Park teaches that the coil spring would surround the protrusion 120, which defines the lengthwise axis, such that it would be compressed along said axis).
Park teaches that the push button with the elastic member functions as a locking device that locks and unlocks with an adjustable component (headrest stay, figs. 1-2); wherein the elastic member (300) comprises a biasing spring that surrounds a protrusion (120) of the body portion’s distal end.
The difference between Park and the claimed invention is Park does not show or suggest that the elastic member (300) can be an elastomeric member.
Bouzid discloses a fixing device (10) of a structure (3), wherein the fixing device (figs. 2 & 5A) functions to lock and unlock with an adjustable component (5) of the structure, and wherein the fixing device includes an elastomeric member (52) configured to provide a biasing force.
Specifically, Bouzid discloses the fixing device includes an elastic member (52) that is coupled to a housing (51) and comprises a biasing spring that surrounds a protrusion (not designated, shown best in figs. 5A & 5C); wherein Bouzid teaches the elastic member can be either a spring (the figures show a coil spring) or an elastomer (pg. 9- second paragraph of the machine translation); wherein the elastomeric member (52) would include at least one projecting member (defined by the structural configuration of the spring or elastomer) extending away from a sheath portion (12b) of the housing along a lengthwise axis; and wherein the elastomeric projecting member would be elastically compressible along said axis to provide the biasing force, as taught in figure 5C.
Accordingly, Bouzid teaches that it is known that a spring and an elastomer are functional equivalents for providing a member with a biasing force included in a locking device for an adjustable component of a structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elastomeric member taught by Bouzid for the biasing coil spring taught by Park because both members were known equivalents for providing a biasing force in a locking device within the adjustable component art.
The substitution would have yielded the predictable result of providing an elastomeric member operably coupled to the push button’s body portion, wherein the elastomeric member provides a biasing force for the lock function of the push button.
Claims 19 and 20- Park and Bouzid teach the push button according to claim 18, wherein Bouzid’s elastomeric member (52) would include a bellows portion (the compressible portion of the elastomeric member, fig. 5C) arranged so that a central axis of the bellows portion provides the lengthwise axis (according to the bellows portion substantially surrounding the axis-defining protrusion 120 of Park).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krimmer (US 10899259) in view of Bouzid (FR 3035625).
Claim 1- Krimmer discloses a push button (24’), comprising:
a body portion (figs. 6B, 7B) comprising a proximal end (having the protrusion 62’), contactable by a user, and a distal end (adjacent elements 36’) comprising a biasing member (36’) operably coupled to the distal end of the body portion and arranged to engage a contact element (34’) of a structure (Krimmer discloses the biasing member engages the contact element through integral formation, col. 7: 57-58);
wherein the push button is operably mountable to the structure (30’) and movable in a first direction from a first position (fig. 6B), in which the push button locks an adjustable component to the structure, to a second position (fig. 7B) in which the adjustable component is unlocked from the structure; and
wherein the biasing member is configured to provide a biasing force back towards the first position when the push button is moved towards the second position (col. 8: 9-30), wherein the body portion is not elastomeric (col. 7: 57-58 discloses the body portion is plastic).
Krimmer teaches that the biasing member of the push button functions in a locking device that locks and unlocks with an adjustable component (headrest stay, figs. 6A, 7A); wherein the biasing member (36’) can comprise one of a variety of springs (helical, leaf, etc., col. 7: 55-56); and wherein the biasing member is formed from plastic.
The difference between Krimmer and the claimed invention is Krimmer does not teach that the biasing member can be formed from an elastomer to thereby provide an elastomeric member.
Bouzid discloses a fixing device (10) of a structure (3), wherein the fixing device (figs. 2 & 5A) functions to lock and unlock with an adjustable component (5) of the structure, and wherein the fixing device includes an elastic member (52) configured to provide a biasing force. Specifically, Bouzid discloses the fixing device includes the elastic member (52) arranged to engage a contact element (51d) and comprising a spring or an elastomer (pg. 9- second paragraph of the machine translation); wherein the elastomer would inherently provide an elastomeric member.
Accordingly, Bouzid teaches that it is known that a spring-formed elastic member and an elastomer-formed elastic member are functional equivalents for forming an elastic member configured to provide a biasing force in a locking device for an adjustable component of a structure, wherein the elastic member is arranged to engage a contact element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic member of Krimmer with elastomer material, as taught by Bouzid, in order to yield the predictable result of including a member that can provide a biasing force for a push button in a locking device within the adjustable component art.
Claim 3- Krimmer and Bouzid teach the push button according to claim 1, wherein the distal end taught by Krimmer includes a pair of support members (not designated, figs. 6B & 7B) spaced apart in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (the figures show a pair of opposing angled recesses formed in the distal end of the button’s 24’ body portion that are transversally spaced apart and coupled to a respective end a biasing member 36’), and wherein the elastomeric member (the biasing member 36’ as modified by Bouzid) extends lengthwise between the support members so as to be deformed in a transverse direction to provide the biasing force (Krimmer shows the biasing member 36’ is structured to extend along the length between the angled recesses, which is also the transverse direction, such that the biasing member deforms along the length, fig. 7B).
Claim 4- Krimmer and Bouzid teach the push button according to claim 3, wherein the elastomeric member (biasing member 36’ as modified) adjoins each support member (angled recess) at a connection zone (the opposed tab-like portions of the distal end define the connection zone having the angled recess).
Claim 17- Krimmer and Bouzid teach the push button according to claim 4, wherein the connection zone (shown, not designated) is formed by over-molding or co-molding the elastomeric member to each support member (col. 7: 57-63, Krimmer teaches that the elastic member can be either integrally formed with the body portion or separately formed distinct from the body portion and then joined to the body portion by a molding process that describes “over-molding or co-molding”). As a result, Krimmer and Bouzid teach that it would have been obvious to use an elastomer to form an elastomeric biasing member that is connected to a button body portion by over-molding or co-molding the elastomeric member to the support member in the connection zone of the body portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference to US 2003/0116999 (¶ [0121]) discloses that configuring an elastomeric member with a bellows portion was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636