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 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 –
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chocolaty et al. (US 7,907,367).
Regarding claim 1, Chocolaty et al. discloses a bracket for a seat adjustment mechanism of a vehicle seat (the limitation of "for a seat..." is functional language, and also included in the preamble and as such is given little patentable weight), the bracket comprising :a body (305) having a surface; a pivot hole (see various holes in 313 in Figures 4) extending through the body and configured to receive a shoulder bolt for connecting the bracket to the seat adjustment mechanism (any of these holes are capable of receiving a shoulder bolt); a dimple (511) formed on the surface adjacent to the pivot hole; and a coined region (at 535; see also column 3, lines 25-40; abstract; etc.) formed around the dimple.
Regarding claims 3-4, there is only one coined region which entirely surround the dimple (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, the coined region is formed around the pivot hole (as per definition of "around" which means nearby; additionally note this claim must be different from claim 6, otherwise there will be a duplicate claim issue).
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.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA; Figs 1a and 1b) in view of Brown (US 3,545,249).
AAPA shows a bracket (Figs 1a and 1b) for a seat adjustment of a vehicle seat, the bracket comprising:
a body having a surface (2); a pivot hole (3) extending through the body and configured to receive a shoulder bolt for connecting the bracket the seat adjustment mechanism; and a dimple (6) formed on the surface adjacent to the pivot hole.
AAPA fails to show a coined region.
Brown teaches a method of making a dimple in metal including substantially flattening the region of the of dimple (see abstract). As discussed in column 6, lines 21-39, this process causes the flow of material which is the definition of a coined region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify AAPA with the teachings of Brown in order to apply a known coined dimple forming technique in order to improve the strength of the bracket.
Regarding claim 6, it would have also been obvious to provide a coined region around the pivot hole in order to further strengthen that area.
Regarding claim 16, AAPA (Figs. 1a, 1b) discloses a bracket with a body, a surface, a pivot hole extending through the body, and a dimple formed adjacent the pivot hole. Brown (Col. 2, lines 14-39; Figs. 3–4) teaches forming a coined region (relief) around a dimple in sheet metal by squeezing and flattening the metal, which strengthens the region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Brown’s coined region-forming technique to the area surrounding the pivot hole of the AAPA bracket, particularly since AAPA already shows a dimple adjacent the pivot hole, in order to improve the strength of the bracket at the pivot hole. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests a coined region that surrounds at least a portion of a perimeter of the pivot hole, as required by claim 16.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Brown as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Adragna et al. (US 8,172,326).
The combination of AAPA and Brown is discussed above, but does not show the seat adjustment mechanism having a four-bar linkage.
Adragna et al. shows a vehicle seat comprising an adjustment mechanism with a four-bar link (see for example, figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of AAPA and Brown with the teachings of Adragna et al. to provide the bracket on a vehicle seat with a four bar linkage in order to provide well known movement and pivoting of the vehicle seat.
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches a coined region formed by pressing/flattening a section of the sheet material, which creates a relief (i.e., a recessed or indented area) extending into the surface of the body (see Col. 2, lines 15-38; and paragraph bridging columns 4-5; Figs. 3–4).
Regarding claim 13, AAPA shows a bracket with a pivot hole (element 3) extending through the surface of the body (see Figs. 1a, 1b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, applicant argues the rejection of Chocolaty. The Chocholaty reference explicitly discloses a dimple and a coined region surrounding the dimple. While element 535 is the conical surface of the dimple, Chocholaty describes and depicts a distinct, annular, flat “coined region” on the substrate surrounding the dimple, as shown in Fig. 9 (997) and described at Col. 3, lines 41–44 (“A coined periphery, which is on the flat part of the substrate and outside the perimeter of the dimple, can be produced using a dimple punch and a die with a raised coining surface.”) and Col. 7, line 57– Col. 8, line 13 (“FIG. 9 is a perspective view of a dimple 911 in a gimbal substrate 921 ... Dimple 911 includes an apex 929 and a base 931. Circumference 995 ... Directly outside of circumference 995 is periphery 933 of dimple 911. On periphery 933 is a coined region 997.”) It is noted that the specification describes Fig. 9 as a detailed view of a dimple and coined region on a gimbal substrate within the same head suspension assembly show in Fig. 4. The specification and figures make clear that the coined region is a separate annular area on the flat portion of the substrate, surrounding the dimple, and not part of the conical dimple surface. Therefore, Chocholaty discloses both a dimple and a coined region around the dimple, as required by claim 1.
Applicant also argues that Chocholaty’s holes are not described as pivot holes, nor as being for a shoulder bolt or for pivoting. The examiner notes that Claim 1 is drafted as an apparatus claim and does not require actual use of the hole as a pivot or with a shoulder bolt; the claim only requires a hole “configured to receive a shoulder bolt.” Chocholaty (see Figs. 4, 9) discloses multiple through-holes in the substrate (load beam 313, gimbal substrate 921), adjacent to the dimple, which are structurally suitable for receiving a fastener, including a shoulder bolt. The intended use or function of the hole (pivoting or seat adjustment mechanism) is not a structural limitation and is given little patentable weight. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these through-holes anticipate the claimed “pivot hole.”
On page 9, applicant argues the combination of AAPA and Brown does not teach or suggest “a coined region formed around the dimple” as required by claim 1. However, Brown (see, e.g., the paragraph beginning col. 4, line 72; Fig. 4) describes a process where the dimple wall is squeezed between die surfaces, causing material to flow into an annular region (rim 69) surrounding the flattened central region of the dimple. This process results in a distinct, annular, thickened, and/or flattened region around the dimple, which is a coined region as understood in metal forming. It would have been obvious to apply this process to the AAPA bracket to improve strength, as both references address strengthening the area around a dimple. Therefore, the combination teaches or makes obvious all limitations of claim 1, and the rejection is properly maintained.
Applicant argues that the prior Office action did not specifically address certain limitations of claims 12 and 13. The examiner notes that claims 9–15 were previously rejected over the same combination of references under the same statutory grounds. The present action clarifies the rejection by explicitly mapping the cited references to the limitations of claims 12 and 13. The examiner asserts these limitations are clearly shown by the references: Brown’s process forms a coined region that is a relief (indented/pressed feature) in the surface of the body, meeting the limitation of claim 12; and AAPA clearly shows a pivot hole extending through the surface of the bracket body, meeting the limitation of claim 13. Finality is therefore proper because no new ground of rejection is introduced, and the basic thrust of the rejection remains unchanged (see MPEP § 706.07(a)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights