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 .
This office action replaces the previous office action mailed 12 March 2026, which mistakenly indicated a non-final status.
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 2 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 2 recites “the (backrest) 7” in multiple locations. Does Applicant intend “the backrest (7)?” Further the claim recites the seat or this apparent backrest rotating about “the pitch axis (Y)” (singular). This is unclear as claim 1 would appear to introduce two axes (Y) (i.e. “the backrest and the base… each being independently rotatable about a pitch axis (Y)” would seem to define an axis for each component).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 (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.
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgiev et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0029502).
Regarding claim 1, Georgiev discloses a seat assembly for a motor vehicle, the assembly comprising a seat (2) having a frame portion (of 1 and/or 4 for instance) and a rigid control body (15) coupled to the frame portion in a movable manner relative to the frame portion with at least four possible distinct movements, wherein the seat further has a backrest (3) to support the back of a user and a base (4) transversal to the backrest to support the lower limbs of the user, the backrest and the base each being independently rotatable around a pitch axis (they are each rotatable), the seat assembly comprising driving means (actuators; see at least paragraph 36) configured to translate the seat along a first direction (X), translate the seat along a second direction (Z) distinct from the first direction, rotate the base and rotate the backrest in response to said four movements, respectively (the seat could be translated horizontally, translated vertically, and the base and backrest rotated by four different movements).
Regarding claim 12, Georgiev further discloses a motor vehicle comprising a seat assembly according to claim 1 (a vehicle is disclosed, and while this would be inherently viewed as a “motor” vehicle, at the very least, the inclusion of seat actuator motors would meet this language).
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Georgiev and optionally in view of Sottong (US Patent Number 6894234).
Regarding claim 3, Georgiev further discloses said four movements include - a first translation movement along a first axis (X), - a second translation movement along a second axis (Z) distinct from the first axis (X), and - a third and a fourth movement associated with a third and a fourth axis (Y), respectively, distinct from the first and the second axis (this is the general arrangement much as in the invention; note at least Figure 1B appears to show translation and that even a pivoting of the switch as described in paragraph 52 would provide at least some translation in the claimed direction). Even if this were not considered translation as intended, translating switches are well-known and changes in shape and arrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide translation as claimed because this could provide simpler operation or improve comfort for a user.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 6, Georgiev discloses an assembly as explained above including the rigid control body has a further possible distinct movement defined by a fifth movement between a first position and a second position (a depressed and not depressed position; see paragraph 52), wherein the fifth movement is a fifth movement of translation along the third axis (this is the general arrangement), the fifth movement characterized as a displacement of the rigid control body between the first position and the second position, the positions achieved by pushing and/or pulling the rigid control body relative to the seat, wherein in the first position, the rigid control body, rotation of the rigid control body about the pitch axis results in a rotation of exactly one of the seat and the backrest about a pitch axis, and wherein, when the rigid control body is in the second position, rotation of the rigid control body about the pitch axis results in a rotation of exactly the other one of the seat and the backrest about an axis, (at least as best understood; i.e. while not explicitly described, the device would at least remain moveable when depressed or not). Even if this were not clear, changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art, and such switches are well-known in the art as shown by Sottong who discloses a related device including multi-function push-pull switches (see at least the third paragraph of column 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to operate Georgiev as claimed and/or to provide the operability as claimed based on normal variation and/or as taught by Sottong because this could allow greater versatility and convenience for a user.
Regarding claim 5, Georgiev further discloses the third movement is a third movement of rotation around the third axis (this would be the case).
Regarding claim 7, Georgiev further discloses the fourth movement is a fourth movement of rotation around the fourth axis (in an opposite direction for instance).
Regarding claim 8, Georgiev further discloses the fourth axis coincides with the third axis (this is general arrangement).
Regarding claim 9, Georgiev further discloses the driving means are configured to translate the seat along the first and the second direction in response to the first and the second translation movement, respectively, as well as to rotate the base and the backrest in response to the third and the fourth movement, respectively (this is the general manner of operation; i.e. movement of the control body activates actuators to move the seat and/or components as intended).
Regarding claim 10, Georgiev further discloses the first and the second axis are straight and coplanar to one another (i.e. horizontal and vertical much as in the invention).
Regarding claim 11, Georgiev further discloses the third axis is orthogonal to the first and the second axis (i.e. lateral and horizontal much as in the invention).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Georgiev does not disclose a fourth movement different from the third movement. Initially, it is noted that Georgiev clearly discloses “four possible distinct movements” of the rigid control body as required by claim 1. That is, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the movements must specifically match particular movements defined in the instant specification (with two rotations about an axis carried out in distinct positions, etc.), the claims in no way require such specificity. At a minimum, Georgiev’s six direction plus rotation control body would provide more than four possible distinct motions. Regarding Applicant’s arguments as to the potential use of Georgiev (related to the amended language in claims 2 and 4), it is maintained that the device could be operated as claimed. That is, Applicant’s assertion that the knob could not or would not operate in both a depressed and undepressed position finds no support in Georgiev; there is no indication that the device becomes inoperable when depressed, and depressing the knob is an intended function as disclosed. Even in the case that this were disputed in light of the amended claim language, the current rejection can optionally rest on the teachings of Sottong, who discloses the use of conventional push-pull switches.
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