DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 11/17/25
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, 3 and 5-11 are pending.
Claims 9-11 have been withdrawn.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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 discusses a first and second end, but does not provide what element the first and second end relates to. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed to be the restoring element.
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, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drabert (DE 19810768) (translation attached) in view of Alirol et al. (FR 3032156) (“Alirol”). Drabert teaches a seat comprising: a seat part frame (fig. 1: 3); and a seat part (fig. 1: 7) displaceable in relation to the seat part frame, wherein the seat part is guided on the seat part frame by means of a guide means (fig. 1: 13, 14), wherein -the seat part can be displaced from a basic position to a displaced position in relation to the seat part frame by a force applied to the seat part, which is exerted on the seat part by a person sitting on the seat part (fig. 2), wherein the seat is formed and provided in such a way that the seat part can be held in the displaced position by a weight of the person sitting on the seat part, and wherein a restoring element (fig. 1: 9) is formed and provided to automatically move the seat part from the displaced position to the basic position when the person leaves the seat part; wherein the spring element is substantially relaxed in the basic position and compressed in the displaced position, in which the spring element tends to relax (as shown in figs. 1 and 2).
Drabert does not teach wherein the seat is a vehicle seat and or wherein the spring is a gas spring. However, Alirol teaches the use of a gas spring as a return mechanism, as is considered old and well known in the art, on a vehicle seat. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the seat of Drabert in a vehicle in order to provide the same reclining feature on a railway seat, or the like, and to replace the coil spring with a known gas spring in order to provide the desired weight to the system.
As concerns claim 3, Drabert, as modified, teaches wherein at least the second end is connected to the seat part frame by means of a second spherical head element (fig. 2: 21).
As concerns claim 5, Drabert, as modified, teaches wherein the guide means comprises sliding block elements and slots (fig. 1: 13, 14 are on both the right and left sides of the seat; paragraph 0020), wherein the sliding block are formed at least partially complementary to the slots, so that the sliding block can be guided in the slots.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 references of Drabert and Alirol fail to teach:
wherein the sliding block element comprises a first section, a second section and a third section, wherein the first section is arranged above the slot and is formed wider than the slot, and wherein the second section is connected to the first section and extends through the slot and a third section is arranged below the slot and is connected to the second section, wherein the third section is also formed wider than the slot;
wherein a first end stop is arranged on the seat part and a bolt element is arranged on the seat part frame, which are provided and formed to interact with one another when the seat part is moved from the displaced position to the basic position, wherein a contact of the bolt element with the first end stop defines the basic position; or
wherein a second end stop is arranged on the seat part, wherein in the basic position the second end is in contact with the second end stop and in the displaced position the second end is released from the second end stop.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applies a new reference Drabert, not previously used in the prior Office Action, as the primary reference. Further, with respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the Alirol reference, Drabert teaches using a conventional coil spring which automatically returns the seat to its original position by moving from the compressed to relaxed state. The Alirol reference is simply used to teach the use of gas springs in seats as a known alternative providing the same result (the fact that Alirol uses a button to actuate release is of no matter, as it is simply a replacement of springs).
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