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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9-10 and 15-20 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.
In the preamble of claim 1, the applicant has disclosed that the invention was a seating group but in claims 9-10 and 15-20 applicant further limits the invention as a “vehicle seat” which renders the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear and confusing. This is indefinite as these claims appear to depend from only a part of claim 1, not the entire claim. Applicant must clarify.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alirol et al. (EP 3053774 A1). Applicant is informed that the claims have been examined in regards to the invention of a seating group and not the vehicle seat. Alirol et al. teaches a seating group comprising a first seat (1) and a second seat (the seat disclosed is for a rail vehicle that inherently has arranged therein seating groups which will consist of a first seat and a second seat arranged directly next to it each other, which is evident, at least implicitly from Figure 3 by the support element partially shown therein). Each seat would be adjustable in seat depth and lumbar support (Figs. 1-2), as each seat comprises a seat part (4) and a backrest part (2), wherein the first seat and the second seat are each designed and intended for simultaneous adjustment of seat depth and lumbar support, wherein the seating group is designed such that the first seat and the second seat are independently adjustable in their respective seat depth and lumbar support (see Figures 4, 5). Regarding claim 2, the first seat comprises a first seat frame (4) and a first backrest frame (8) that are rotatably connected to a first connecting frame (6) such that the first seat frame (4) and the first backrest frame (10) are simultaneously displaceable relative to the first connecting (6); consequently the second seat will inherently have a second seat frame (4) and a second backrest frame (8) are rotatably connected to a second connecting frame (6) such that the second seat frame (4) and the second backrest frame (10) are simultaneously displaceable relative to the second connecting frame (6). Regarding claim 3, the first supporting element (6) and the second support element (6) are rigidly connected to each other (see Fig. 3), so that the first support element and the second support element form a common support element (as can be seen in Figure 3). Regarding claim 4, Alirol shows that the seat frame and the backrest frame are translationally displaceable (as shown in Figs. 1-3). Regarding claims 5-6 and 12-14, a first adjusting element (66) is provided to displace the first seat part and inherently a second adjusting element (66) is provided to displace the second seat part both being fixed to the respective first and second seat part. Regarding claims 9-10 and 15-20 the angle between the seat frame (4) and the backrest frame (10) are fixed within the seat part and the seat frame and backrest frame (8) are variable with respect to each other within the seat part.
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) 7-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alirol et al. in view of Wang et al. (10,007,478). Alirol et al. shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the use of a single control unit for adjusting the first and second adjusting element independently of one another. Wang et al. teaches the use of a single control unit (24) wherein the control unit is designed and configured to control the adjustment elements independently of one another, and the control unit is arranged below a first seat frame (Fig. 1) and below a second seat frame (as seen in Fig. 5), as well as between the first adjustment element (18) and the second adjustment element (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seating group of Alirol et al. with the control unit as taught by Wang et al in order to reduce the need for complex physical buttons and allow for touchscreen and/or hands free adjustment to be employed for use with the single control unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference Nos. FR 3,074,767A1 and EP 3575142 A1 show features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
December 23, 2024
Prosecution Insights