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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MECHANICALLY ACTUATABLE SEAT STRUCTURE WITH DYNAMICALLY CONFIGURABLE SUPPORT SURFACE.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 6056360) in view of Seyler (US 5462335).
Claim 1- Schneider discloses a mechanically actuatable structural assembly (Adjustable Lumbar Seat Support) comprising:
a first panel (12) comprising: a first elastically deformable region formed from elastic material (col. 4: 48-49), a first leading edge region (disposed adjacent the element 20), a first trailing edge region (disposed adjacent the element 18) opposing the first leading edge region, and a first pair of opposing side edge regions (extending between and perpendicular to the first edge regions); wherein the first elastically deformable region resides between the first leading edge region and the first trailing edge region (fig. 1, col. 4: 40-43);
a second panel (14) comprising: a second elastically deformable region formed from elastic material (col. 4: 48-49), a second leading edge region (disposed adjacent the element 20) coupled (by the element 20) to the first leading edge region to form a joined leading edge region (col. 4: 35-37), a second trailing edge region (disposed adjacent the element 18) opposing the second leading edge region and coupled (by the element 18) to the first trailing edge region to form a joined trailing edge region (col. 4: 35-37), and a second pair of opposing side regions (extending between and perpendicular to the second edge regions); wherein the second elastically deformable region resides between the second leading edge region and the second trailing edge region (fig. 1, col. 4: 40-43), and wherein the second pair of opposing side edge regions are free to move relative to the first pair of opposing side edge regions (corresponding to changes in the volume 16, col. 3: 37-39); and
an actuation assembly (92) comprising: a first component (a first end portion) configured to engage the joined leading edge region (a first end portion of a biasing mechanism 30 is coupled to leading edge 20, fig. 3); a second component (a second end portion) configured to engage the joined trailing edge region (the opposing end portion of the biasing mechanism is coupled to the trailing edge 18); and a loading element (the main body of the biasing mechanism 30) coupled to the first component and cooperating with the second component, at least a portion of the loading element (30) residing between the first and second panels (fig. 3).
The difference between Schneider and the claimed invention is Schneider does not disclose the actuation assembly (30) comprises a movable loading element. However, Schneider teaches (in figs. 3-4) that an actuation assembly suitable for operating a pair of deformable panels (12,14) is also suitable for operating a similar pair of articulated panels (12’, 14’); and that an actuation assembly (92) comprising a movable loading element (252) is configured to engage the joined leading and trailing edge regions of a pair of articulated panels (figs. 7-8), such that at least a portion of the movable loading element resides between the first (12’) and second (14’) panels (col. 7: 48-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the actuation assembly comprising the movable loading element for the actuation assembly comprising the loading element (biasing mechanism) because Schneider teaches both assemblies are functional equivalents for providing a mechanically actuatable structural assembly.
The substitution would have yielded the predictable result of providing an actuation assembly comprising: a first component (250) configured to engage the joined leading edge region (col. 6: 30-32); a second component (84) configured to engage the joined trailing edge region (col. 7: 48-50); and a movable loading element (252) coupled to the first component and cooperating with the second component (col. 7: 50-54), at least a portion (244) of the movable loading element residing between the first and second panels (figs. 7-8); wherein when the movable loading element is in a retracted state (achieved by a tension force applied to the loading element, col. 8: 3-7), the first elastically deformable region (of deformable panel 12) is subjected to compressive axial loading (on the leading edge region 20 at the first component 250) that causes the first elastically deformable region to buckle into a first loaded shape (a convex curvature, col. 8: 7-13), and the second elastically deformable region (of deformable panel 14) is subjected to compressive axial loading (on the trailing edge region 18 at the second component 84) that causes the second elastically deformable region to buckle into a second loaded shape (a convex curvature, fig. 1).
Schneider teaches when the movable loading element is in an extended state (achieved by release of the tension force from the loading element, col. 8: 15-19), the first and second elastically deformable region would have first and second relaxed shapes (fig. 8); however, the deformable regions are loaded by an external force (150) to adjust to and maintain the relaxed shapes (col. 8: 15-19). Schneider does not teach that the first elastically deformable region is unloaded or preloaded to maintain a first relaxed shape, and the second elastically deformable region is unloaded or preloaded to maintain a second relaxed shape.
Seyler discloses a mechanically actuatable structural assembly (13) comprising: a panel (27) comprising an elastically deformable region residing between a leading edge region (27a) and a trailing edge (27a) region (the panel is a leaf spring which inherently possesses elastic deformability); and an actuation assembly comprising a movable loading element (45, 53) coupled to a first component (20) and a second component (20); wherein when the movable loading element is in an extended state (defined by the outermost positions of the first and second components, fig. 3), the elastically deformable region (27) is unloaded or preloaded to maintain a relaxed shape (the leaf spring 27 is preloaded to a minimum curvature, col. 5: 39-49); and wherein when the movable loading element (45, 53) is in a retracted state (defined by the innermost positions of the first and second components, fig. 4), the elastically deformable region is subjected to compressive axial loading (at the leading and trailing edge regions by the first and second components 20, 20) that causes the elastically deformable region (27) to buckle into a first loaded shape (maximum curvature).
Seyler’s panel is similar to Schneider’s panels in that it can have a relaxed shape (comprising a minimum curvature) when the movable loading element is in its extended state, and it can have a loaded shape (comprising a maximum curvature) by compressive axial loading when the movable loading element is in a retracted state; wherein the movable loading element comprises a cable arrangement, similar to that of Schneider, configured to adjust the positions of the leading and trailing edge regions of the panel. Seyler teaches that it is suitable to maintain the relaxed shape by configuring the deformable region to be preloaded when the movable element is in its extended state.
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 actuation assembly of Schneider with the preloaded state taught by Seyler, in order to provide a relaxed shape for the first and second panels when they are not subjected to compressive axial loading.
Claim 2- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, further comprising a panel axis defined as extending between the joined leading edge region and the joined trailing edge region of Schneider’s panels (the center slot 26 shown in fig. 1 indicates the panel axis), wherein the movable loading element (252) extends and retracts along an actuation axis (130) that is parallel to the panel axis (the actuation axis of Schneider’s panels also extends between the joined leading and trailing edge regions).
Claim 3- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 2, wherein the first and second panels (12, 14) taught by Schneider are asymmetric (col. 5: 2-7) about the actuation axis.
Claim 4- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein retraction of the movable loading element (252) taught by Schneider causes the first (250) and second (84) components of the actuation assembly to apply compressive force against the joined leading edge region (20) and the joined trailing edge region (col. 6: 26-32, col. 8: 3-12); and wherein extension of the movable loading element (252) reduces the compressive force applied by the first and second components of the actuation assembly (col. 8: 15-19).
Claim 5- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 4, wherein retraction of the movable loading element (252) taught by Schneider would cause the first elastically deformable region of the first panel (12) to buckle away from the second elastically deformable region of the second panel (referred to as “extended outwardly”, col. 8: 5-10); and wherein a maximum distance (defined by the volume 16) between the first and second panels taught by Schneider increases as a function of the compressive force applied against the joined leading edge region and the joined trailing edge region (col. 3: 33-46).
Claim 6- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein the actuation assembly taught by Schneider comprises a Bowden cable (108, 106, 84).
Claim 7- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein the actuation assembly taught by Schneider can comprise a movable slat (94a).
Claim 8- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second panels taught by Schneider are identically shaped and sized (col. 5: 8-9).
Claim 9- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein Seyler teaches the assembly would further comprise cushioning material coupled to an exterior of the first panel (fig. 1), coupled to an exterior of the second panel, or coupled to the exterior of the first panel and to the exterior of the second panel.
Claim 10- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second panels (12, 14) are integrally formed as a unitary component with the first and second leading edge regions seamlessly joined together (taught by Schneider, fig. 1), and with the first and second trailing edge regions seamlessly joined together.
Claim 11- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, Schneider teaches the assembly would further comprise at least one spacer (94b) coupled between the first and second panels (figs. 5-6), and would be configured to facilitate movement of the movable loading element (108) between the first and second panels.
Claim 12- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 1, Schneider teaches the assembly would further comprise an activation mechanism (66) coupled to the actuation device, wherein the activation mechanism is controllable to pull the movable loading element from the extended state to the retracted state (col. 7: 33-37); and the activation mechanism is controllable to release the movable loading element from the retracted state to the extended state.
Claim 13- Schneider and Seyler teach a seating system (Abstract) comprising at least one instance of a mechanically actuatable structural assembly as recited in claim
Claim 14- Schneider discloses a mechanically actuatable structural assembly (10) comprising:
a first elastically deformable panel (12) comprising: a first leading edge region (adjacent the hinge 20); a first trailing edge region (adjacent the hinge 18) opposing the first leading edge region (fig. 1); a first side edge region (parallel to slots 26); and a second side edge region opposing the first side edge region (parallel to slots 26);
a second elastically deformable panel (14) comprising: a second leading edge region coupled (by the hinge 20) to the first leading edge region to form a joined leading edge (col. 4: 35-37); a second trailing edge region opposing the second leading edge region and coupled (by the hinge 18) to the first trailing edge region to form a joined trailing edge (col. 4: 35-37); a third side edge region (parallel to slots 26); and a fourth side edge region opposing the third side edge region (parallel to slots 26), wherein the first side edge region is not directly attached to the third side edge region (fig. 1, col. 3: 37-39), and wherein the second side edge region is not directly attached to the fourth side edge region (fig. 1, the side edge regions are separated by a volume 16); and
means for applying a compressive axial load (92) to the joined leading and trailing edges (fig. 3), wherein the compressive axial load causes the first elastically deformable panel to adaptively buckle into a first loaded shape (“extended position”, col. 5: 18-25), and causes the second elastically deformable panel to adaptively buckle into a second loaded shape.
Schneider teaches that the means for applying (92) coupled to the deformable panels (12, 14) comprises a biasing mechanism (30) that automatically applies the compressive axial load to maintain the panels in the loaded shapes (col. 5: 22-25).
The difference between Schneider and the claimed invention is Schneider does not teach that removal of the compressive axial load causes the first elastically deformable panel to return to a first relaxed shape, and the second elastically deformable panel to return to a second relaxed shape.
Schneider teaches (in figs. 3-4) that a means for applying (92) suitable for operating a pair of deformable panels (12,14) is also suitable for operating a similar pair of articulated panels (12’, 14’); and that a means for applying (92) comprising a cable mechanism (252) can provide the structural assembly with a relaxed shape in addition to the loaded shapes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the means for applying a compressive axial load to articulated panels for the means for applying a compressive axial load to deformable panels because Schneider teaches both means are functional equivalents for providing a mechanically actuatable structural assembly.
The substitution would have yielded the predictable result of providing relaxed shapes for the first and second elastically deformable panels.
Seyler discloses a mechanically actuatable structural assembly (13) comprising: an elastically deformable panel (27) comprising a leading edge region (27a) and a trailing edge (27a) region (the panel is a leaf spring which inherently possesses elastic deformability); and a means for applying a compressive axial load comprising a cable mechanism (45, 53); wherein removal of the compressive axial load (defined by the outermost positions of edge blocks 20, fig. 3) causes the elastically deformable panel (27) to return to a relaxed shape (defined by a minimum curvature of the leaf spring 27, col. 5: 39-49); and wherein the compressive axial load (defined by the innermost positions of the edge blocks 20, fig. 4) causes the elastically deformable panel (27) to adaptively buckle into a first loaded shape (defined by a maximum curvature, fig. 4).
Seyler’s panel is similar to Schneider’s panels in that it can have a relaxed shape (comprising a minimum curvature), and it can have a loaded shape (comprising a maximum curvature), and the means for applying comprises a cable mechanism; wherein the cable mechanism is configured to adjust the positions of the leading and trailing edge regions of the panel. Seyler teaches that it is suitable to configure the deformable panel to return to a relaxed shape the compressive axial load is removed.
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 means for applying of Schneider with the return function taught by Seyler, in order to provide a return to a relaxed shape for the deformable panels when they are not subjected to compressive axial loading.
Claim 15- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 14, wherein the means for applying (taught by Schneider) comprises a Bowden cable (108, 106, 84) that is controlled to apply the compressive axial load.
Claim 16- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 14, wherein Schneider teaches that application of the compressive axial load decreases distance between the joined leading edge region and the joined trailing edge region (fig. 7), and increases distance (shown as volume 16) between the pairs of side edge regions (fig. 1).
Claim 17- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 14, wherein Schneider teaches that removal of the compressive axial load (according to Seyler’s teaching) would increase distance between the joined leading edge region and the joined trailing edge region (col. 4: 38-43), causing the first elastically deformable panel to flatten (fig. 8), and causing the second elastically deformable panel to flatten (col. 3: 33-39).
Claim 18- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 14, wherein the first and second elastically deformable panels (12, 14) taught by Schneider are identically shaped and sized (col. 4: 33-35).
Claim 19- Schneider and Seyler teach the mechanically actuatable structural assembly of claim 14, wherein Seyler teaches the assembly would further comprise cushioning material (fig. 1) coupled to an exterior of the first elastically deformable panel, coupled to an exterior of the second elastically deformable panel, or coupled to the exterior of the first elastically deformable panel and to the exterior of the second elastically deformable panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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