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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 12-22, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoshida et al. (10,384,567) in view of Singla Casasayas (9,669,735).
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 26-27 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the slow" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 1-4, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. in view of Singla Casasayas.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida et al. disclose a vehicle seat for simultaneous adjustment of a seat depth and a lumbar support of the vehicle seat, wherein the vehicle seat S2 comprises a backrest frame (top of S22), a seat part frame S21 and a connecting frame S22, wherein the connecting frame is rotatably connected about a first rotation axis (see figure 2 where the part S22 rotates about top part of the backrest) to the backrest frame and rotatably connected about a second rotation axis (between S22, S21) to the seat part frame and connects the seat part frame to the backrest frame, the seat part frame S21 and the backrest frame include a fixed and unchangeable angle relative to one another (see figures 1, 2).
However, Yoshida et al. fail to disclose the seat part frame and the backrest frame are connected to a supporting element in such a way that the seat part frame and the backrest frame are simultaneously displaceable relative to the supporting element, wherein the supporting element is a rigid seat shell which is configured such that the seat part frame and the backrest frame are displaceable with respect to the supporting element, and wherein the supporting element is stationary with respect to a cabin or a carriage.
Instead, Singla Casasayas discloses the seat part frame 5 and the backrest frame 4 are connected to a supporting element 3 in such a way that the seat part frame and the backrest frame are simultaneously displaceable relative to the supporting element, wherein the supporting element is a rigid seat shell which is configured such that the seat part frame and the backrest frame are displaceable with respect to the supporting element, and wherein the supporting element is stationary with respect to a cabin or a carriage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Singla Casasayas and use a supporting frame in the invention of Yoshida et al. in order to prevent any damages or injuries.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Yoshida et al. discloses a first variable angle is provided between the seat part frame and the connecting frame and a second variable angle is provided between the backrest frame and the connecting frame, wherein the size of the variable angles changes as the seat part frame is displaced, wherein the lumbar support is variable (See figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida et al. discloses the backrest frame and the seat part frame are each displaceable exclusively in translation (via 50).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida et al. disclose the first rotation axis is always arranged above the second rotation axis, and wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are arranged in such a way that a section between the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis corresponds to a lumbar section of a person (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 22, Yoshida et al. disclose the connecting frame corresponds to a lumbar section of a person (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 23, Yoshida et al. disclose at least one armrest (figures 1 and 2 show the armrest) is arranged on a backrest section.
Regarding claim 24, Yoshida et al. as modified with Singla Casasayas further disclose the backrest frame and the seat part frame are displaceable relative to the supporting element 3 (Singla) exclusively in a translatory manner along a respective direction of extension of each frame.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. in view of Singla Casasayas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lien (5,007,676).
Regarding claim 6, Lien discloses the backrest frame and the connecting frame are connected to a first upholstery element 13 and the seat part frame is connected to a second upholstery element 84, wherein preferably the first upholstery element is independent of the second upholstery element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lien and use independent backrest and seat part cover in the invention of Sebaran et al. because it is efficient and inexpensive in terms in installing and replacing.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. in view of Singla Casasayas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lockwood et al. (US 2011/0084530).
Regarding claims 7, 8, Lockwood et al. disclose a releasable connection 26 between the seat part frame and the connecting frame, wherein the releasable connection preferably is a clip connection, wherein the releasable connection comprises a sleeve element, which in a cross-section has a circular sector with a center angle of more than 180° and at most 300°, and a shaft piece formed at least partially complementary to the sleeve element and insertable into the sleeve element (see figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lockwood et al. and use a hinge type clip connection in the invention of Yoshida et al. because it is simple, compact and inexpensive.
Regarding claim 32, Lockwood et al. disclose the releaseable connection 26 comprises a sleeve element and a shaft piece, wherein the sleeve element is arranged on the connecting frame 28 and the shaft piece is arranged on the seat part frame, and wherein the sleeve element has a cross-section of a circular sector and the shaft piece is formed at least partially complementary to the sleeve element and is insertable into the sleeve element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lockwood et al. and use a hinge type clip connection in the invention of Yoshida et al. because it is simple, compact and inexpensive.
Claim(s) 5, 25, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. in view of Singla Casasayas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silipo.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Silipo discloses backrest frame and the seat part frame can be displaced in translation by means of a guiding means 32, 33, wherein preferably the guiding means can be at least one sliding block guide, wherein the at least one sliding block guide 241, 223 comprises at least one sliding block element and at least one slot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Silipo and use the slot and block connection in the invention of Yoshida et al. because it simple, efficient and cost effective.
Regarding claim 28, Silipo fails to disclose the sliding block elements are connected to the supporting element, and the slots are integrated into the seat part frame and the backrest frame. However, Silipo discloses an reverse arrangement wherein sliding block elements 241, 223 are connected to the frame part, and the slots 331, 321 are integrated into the supporting element 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to attach the sliding blocks to supporting element and slot to frames to facilitate faster installation, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 29, Silipo discloses each slot has a length, wherein the length of the slot 331 of the seat part frame is longer than the length of the slot 321 of the backrest frame (see fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Silipo and use longer slot in the seat part of the invention of Yoshida et al. because it simple, efficient and cost effective.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 27, 30, 31 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.
Regarding claim 26, Yoshida et al. fail to disclose each sliding block element comprises a first section, a second section, and a third section, wherein the first section is wider than the slot, wherein the second section is arranged to the first section and extends through the corresponding slot while the third section is arranged below the slow and is arranged to the second section, and wherein the third section is also formed wider than the slot.
Regarding claim 30, Yoshida et al. fail to disclose the connecting frame comprises a first web element, a second web element, and a third web element, which each extend into correspondingly formed acceptance of the backrest frame for connecting the backrest frame and the connecting frame.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights