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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Silipo (US 2022/0176851).
Regarding claim 1, Silipo discloses a vehicle seat for simultaneous adjustment of a seat depth and a lumbar support of the vehicle seat, wherein the vehicle seat comprises a backrest frame 23, a seat part frame 24 and a connecting frame (at lumbar axle 13 to roller 241, figure 3)), wherein the connecting frame is rotatably connected about a first rotation axis 24a to the backrest frame and rotatably connected about a second rotation axis (at 241, figure 5 shows the rotation)to the seat part frame and connects the seat part frame to the backrest frame, wherein the seat part frame and the backrest frame are connected to a supporting element 4 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.
Regarding claim 2, Silipo discloses the seat part frame 24 and the backrest frame 23 include a fixed and unchangeable angle relative to one another (see figure 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Silipo 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 (figures 5A and 5B shows the change in angle between the seat, backrest and lumbar frame).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 11, Silipo discloses the backrest frame and the seat part frame are each displaceable exclusively in translation (via guiding means 32 and 33).
Regarding claim 5, 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.
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) 6, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silipo in view of Lien (5,007,676).
Regarding claims 6, 12-14, 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, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silipo in view of Lockwood et al. (US 2011/0084530).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 16-18, 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 Silipo because it is simple, compact and inexpensive.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silipo in view of Brennan, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lien.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected as set forth in claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silipo in view of Brennan, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lockwood et al.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected as set forth in claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silipo in view of Lien, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lockwood et al.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected as set forth in claim 7 above.
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 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