DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 3/30/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 20 have been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15 and 17-19 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite “wherein the linkage structure comprises a compression mechanism […] that enables a front portion of the seat bottom to lower with respect to the linkage structure.” It is unclear how the linkage structure comprises an element that allows it lower with respect to itself.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite “wherein the linkage structure comprises a compression mechanism, a wheel or a gear” and then recites “wherein the compression mechanism comprises an extension […].” It is unclear whether Applicant is affirmatively claiming only the compression mechanism of the alternative based on the additional description, and if so why an alternative of elements which may comprise the linkage structure is provided. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed Applicant intends to affirmatively claim the linkage structure having a compression mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hofmann et al. (WO 2025051724) (“Hofmann”). As concerns claims 1 and 10, Hofmann discloses a vehicle (abstract: it is a vehicle seat), a seat assembly for the vehicle, the seat assembly comprising: a seat having a seat bottom (Fig. 1: 10); and a linkage structure (fig. 1: 13, including at least 130A, 131, 134) for coupling the seat bottom to a floor structure, wherein the linkage structure enables movement of the seat bottom during a collision of the vehicle (shown in fig. 3), and wherein the linkage structure comprises a compression mechanism (fig. 10A: 130A), a wheel, or a gear that enables a front portion of the seat bottom to lower with respect to the linkage structure and the floor structure during the collision (shown in fig. 3), wherein the compression mechanism comprises an extension (fig. 10A: 133) that is fixedly attached to the seat bottom and compresses or deforms a compressible material (fig. 10A: 132A) during the collision (fig. 10A: 133 slides down compressing 132A against pin 135).
As concerns claims 2, 11 and 18, Hofmann discloses wherein the linkage structure enables rotation of the seat bottom to rotate an occupant seated in the seat, to improve seat belt contact of the occupant, and to prevent submarining of the occupant during the collision (as shown in fig. 3).
As concerns claims 6 and 15, Hofmann discloses wherein the linkage structure is passive and moves the seat during the collision (as shown in fig. 3).
As concerns claim 17, Hofmann discloses a method for manufacturing a seat assembly comprising: adapting a linkage structure (fig. 1: 13, including at least 130A, 131, 134) to couple a seat bottom (fig. 1: 10) of a seat to a floor structure; and adapting the linkage structure to enable movement of the seat bottom during a collision of the vehicle (shown in fig. 3), wherein the linkage structure comprises a compression mechanism (fig. 10A: 130A), a wheel, or a gear that enables a front portion of the seat bottom to lower with respect to the linkage structure and the floor structure during the collision (shown in fig. 3), wherein the compression mechanism comprises an extension (fig. 10A: 133) that is fixedly attached to the seat bottom and compresses or deforms a compressible material (fig. 10A: 132A) during the collision (fig. 10A: 133 slides down compressing 132A against pin 135)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 12, 14 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference of Hofmann fails to teach
wherein the linkage structure enables forward movement of the seat bottom in a longitudinal direction to absorb forces experienced by an occupant seated in the seat during the collision; or
wherein the linkage structure further enables a rear portion of the seat bottom to rise during the collision.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Osa and McCarthy references are moot, as they are no longer applied based on the amendment. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hofman have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hofmann has a deformation section included between the arms of the linkage and does not have an extension that is fixedly attached to the seat bottom and compresses a compressible material during the collision. The Office disagrees. The claim language recites “the linkage structure comprises a compression mechanism […] the compression mechanism comprises an extension.” As such the linkage structure itself includes the compression mechanism which includes the extension. Hofmann has a linkage structure 13 which includes the compression mechanism 133,135A and the compression mechanism includes extension 133 which is fixed to the seat bottom via a bolt at L2 (paragraph 0070).
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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights