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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected because Figs. 3-9 do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics 37 CFR 1.84 (l) and (m) detail the requirements of drawings:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a
process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Figs. 3-9 do not have adequately durable, clean, black lines for adequate reproduction purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, it appears that “couple” should actually be --coupling-- for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 claim 16, Applicant recites “a bearing spacer.” However, the specification does not clearly identify which structure the bearing spacer is. Additionally, it is not clear if this structure is shown in the drawings.
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 –
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franzmann et al. (DE 10236068).
With respect to claim 1, Franzmann et al. disclose A method for manufacturing a seat track mechanism for use with a vehicle seat, the method comprising:
determining a track travel length of a vehicle base track 3 and a rail length of a rail of the vehicle seat (“the desired length is first set,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.);
determining a desired spacer length of a spacer 217 for use with the vehicle base track 3 and the rail 4 of the vehicle seat;
fixing a first spacer member (inner member of spacer 217) to a second spacer member (outer members of spacer 217) to form a spacer 217 having the desired spacer length; and
coupling a first sliding member 211 to the first spacer member (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.) and couple a second sliding member 211 to the second spacer member (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.) to form the seat track mechanism 211/215/217.
With respect to claim 2, Franzmann et al. disclose mounting the seat track mechanism between the vehicle base track 3 and the rail 4 (ball cages 211 of the embodiment shown in Fig. 7 would be in place of ball cage units 11 shown in Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Franzmann et al. disclose that fixing the first spacer member to the second spacer member to form the spacer having the desired spacer length comprises fitting the first spacer member and the second spacer member together without use of a tool (“by a relative displacement between an inner part of the spacer 217 and an outer part of the spacer 217 the desired length is first set,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.–note, Franzmann et al. disclose at least an intermediate state of the seat track mechanism that is fixed without a tool).
With respect to claim 5, Franzmann et al. disclose that the first spacer member and the second spacer member physically lock to one another when fixed together (“then fixed by crimping or the like,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.).
With respect to claim 9, Franzmann et al. disclose a seat track mechanism for sliding in a vehicle base track 3, the seat track mechanism comprising:
a first sliding member 211 for sliding in the vehicle base track 3;
a second sliding member 211 for sliding in the vehicle base track 3;
a first spacer member (outer portions of spacer 217) having a first end fixed to the first sliding member 211 (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.); and
a second spacer member (inner portion of spacer 217) having a second end fixed to the second sliding member 211 (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.);
wherein the first spacer member and the second spacer member are configured to mate together at a plurality of configurations to form a spacer 217 having a desired spacer length, wherein the plurality of configurations includes a retracted configuration having a minimum length and an extended configuration having a maximum length (“The spacer 217 is designed as a lockable telescope, ie by a relative displacement between an inner part of the spacer 217 and an outer part of the spacer 217 the desired length is first set and then fixed by crimping or the like,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.–the structure of the spacer would inherently result in the plurality of configurations including a minimum length and a maximum length).
With respect to claim 12, Franzmann et al. disclose that the first spacer member and the second spacer member physically lock to one another when mated (“then fixed by crimping or the like,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.).
With respect to claim 15, Franzmann et al. disclose that the first sliding member 211 and the second sliding member 211 each comprise a ball cage containing at least one bearing for riding in the vehicle base track 3 (see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.).
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 3, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzmann et al. (DE 10236068).
While Franzmann et al. is silent on how the first spacer member and the second spacer member are selected, in large scale manufacturing, it is routine practice to select the parts to be assembled from a lot of universal members of each structural element in order to allow an assembler to assemble products as quickly as possible.
With respect to claim 17, Franzmann et al. disclose the claimed vehicle except that they are silent on the inclusion of a vehicle body. Franzmann et al. disclose a vehicle base track 3 for coupling to a vehicle body;
a seat rail 4 mounted to a seat and configured for movement with respect to the vehicle base track 3 (see paragraph [0015] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.);
a first sliding member 211 for sliding in the vehicle base track 3;
a second sliding member 211 for sliding in the vehicle base track 3;
a first spacer member (outer portions of spacer 217) having a first end fixed to the first sliding member 211 (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.); and
a second spacer member (inner portion of spacer 217) having a second end fixed to the second sliding member 211 (as shown in Fig. 7 of Franzmann et al.);
wherein the first spacer member and the second spacer member are configured to mate together at a plurality of configurations to form a spacer 217 having a desired length, wherein the plurality of configurations includes a retracted configuration having a minimum length and an extended configuration having a maximum length (“The spacer 217 is designed as a lockable telescope, ie by a relative displacement between an inner part of the spacer 217 and an outer part of the spacer 217 the desired length is first set and then fixed by crimping or the like,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.–the structure of the spacer would inherently result in the plurality of configurations including a minimum length and a maximum length).
While Franzmann et al. is silent on the inclusion of a vehicle body, such vehicle bodies are ubiquitously known and 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a body for the protection it provides the driver and/or passengers of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 19, Franzmann et al. disclose that the first spacer member and the second spacer member physically lock to one another when mated (“then fixed by crimping or the like,” see paragraph [0021] of the machine translation of Franzmann et al.).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzmann et al. (DE 10236068), as applied to claims 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Frizzell, III (US 2020/0406807).
With respect to claim 8, Franzmann et al. disclose the claimed method except that they are silent on the lengths of the first spacer member and the second spacer member. However, Frizzell, III teaches a similar structure including a first spacer member 304-A and a second spacer member 304-B that each have a same length (inherent in a structure that is adjustable between 25 and 50 inches as disclosed in paragraph [0044] of Frizzell, III), and wherein the same length is equal to a minimum length of the spacer (as mentioned in paragraph [0044] of Frizzell, III, the length of 25 inches would be the minimum length and the same length, see also Fig. 7 of Frizzell, III).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Frizzell, III with the method disclosed by Franzmann et al. because setting the first and second spacer members to the same length maximizes the extendable length while simultaneously allowing the smallest possible contractible length.
With respect to claim 13, Franzmann et al. disclose the claimed seat track mechanism except that they are silent on the lengths of the first spacer member and the second spacer member. However, Frizzell, III teaches a similar structure including a first spacer member 304-A and a second spacer member 304-B that each have a same length (inherent in a structure that is adjustable between 25 and 50 inches as disclosed in paragraph [0044] of Frizzell, III), and wherein the same length is equal to a minimum length of the spacer (as mentioned in paragraph [0044] of Frizzell, III, the length of 25 inches would be the minimum length and the same length, see also Fig. 7 of Frizzell, III).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Frizzell, III with the seat track mechanism disclosed by Franzmann et al. because setting the first and second spacer members to the same length maximizes the extendable length while simultaneously allowing the smallest possible contractible length.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzmann et al. (DE 10236068), as applied to claim 9 or 17 above, and further in view of Millet et al. (US 2013/0004264).
With respect to claims 14 and 20, Franzmann et al. disclose the claimed seat track mechanism or vehicle except that for the first spacer member and the second spacer member being identical. However, Millet et al. teach a spacer including a first spacer member 28.1 and a second spacer member 28.2 that are identical (Millet et al.., paragraph [0027]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the spacer members disclosed by Franzmann et al. with the teaching of Millet et al. for the advantage of the reduction of different types of parts required for the manufacture of the seat track mechanism.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzmann et al. (DE 10236068), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fujishiro et al. (US 2012/0205512).
With respect to claim 16, Franzmann et al. disclose the claimed seat track mechanism except for each ball cage including a lower bearing for rolling against the vehicle base track, an upper bearing for riding against the seat rail, and a bearing spacer configured to separate the lower bearing from the upper bearing.
However, Fujishiro et al. teach a similar seat track mechanism that is configured to connect a vehicle base track 30 to a seat rail 40; and also including a ball cage 2 including a lower bearing 2a for rolling against the vehicle base track 30, an upper bearing 2a for riding against the seat rail 40, and a bearing spacer as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Fujishiro et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (bearing spacer)][AltContent: ][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
242
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the bearing spacer is configured to separate the lower bearing from the upper bearing (as shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-7, 10-11, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first spacer member and the second spacer member each including alternating projections and recesses.
Claim 7 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first spacer member and the second spacer member each including alternating projections and recesses.
Claim 10 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first spacer member and the second spacer member each include alternating projections and recesses.
Claim 11 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first spacer member and the second spacer member each include alternating projections and recesses.
Claim 18 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first spacer member and the second spacer member each include alternating projections and recesses with a constant pitch, and wherein the desired length of the spacer member may be adjusted by increments of the constant pitch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612