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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-21, 23, 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “means of the coupling mechanism” is treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 4-6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (7,380,885).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer et al. disclose a vehicle seat, comprising a seat base U, a seat part F which is arranged on the seat base and can be adjusted relative to the seat base, a backrest R/1 which is mounted on the seat base so as to be pivotable between an upright use position (figure 1A) and a non-use position (figure 7) which is pivoted towards the seat part, a coupling mechanism for coupling an adjustment movement of the seat part to a pivot movement of the backrest, and a locking lever 6, which can be pivoted between a locking position and an unlocking position by means of the coupling mechanism (col. 10, lines24-41 disclose a Bowden cable as unlocking lever), is provided, which is in its locking position in the use position of the backrest and locks the backrest from pivoting into the non-use position, and can be pivoted from its locking position into its unlocking position for pivoting the backrest from the use position into the non-use position.
Regarding claim 2, Fischer et al. disclose the coupling mechanism for pivoting the locking lever from the unlocking position into the locking position and/or from the locking position into the unlocking position comprises an unlocking element (Bowden cable with an unlocking lever) which is displaceably mounted on the seat base and/or on the backrest and which adjusts the locking lever by way of a displacement.
Regarding claim 4, Fischer et al. disclose the locking lever 6 is pivotably mounted on the seat base 100 between the locking position and the unlocking position and in the locking position rests against a portion of the backrest.
Regarding claim 5, Fischer et al. disclose the vehicle seat has a spring element 65 with which the locking lever 6 is pre-tensioned in the direction of the unlocking position.
Regarding claim 6, Fischer et al. disclose the coupling mechanism for pivoting the locking lever from the unlocking position into the locking position comprises an unlocking element (Bowden cable with unlocking lever) which is displaceably mounted on the seat base and/or on the backrest and which, by way of a displacement, applies a deflecting force to the locking lever 6 against a pre-tension applied by the spring element 65.
Regarding claim 11, Fischer et al. disclose the seat part is translationally and/or rotationally adjustable relative to the seat base (see figures).
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, 3, 7-9, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haglund (6,685,270) in view of Sasaki et al. (7,025,419).
Regarding claim Haglund discloses a vehicle seat (col. 1, lines 3-8), comprising a seat part, a backrest 13, 24 which is mounted on the seat base so as to be pivotable between an upright use position and a non-use position which is pivoted towards the seat part, a coupling mechanism 1, 2, 32, 40 for coupling an adjustment movement of the seat part to a pivot movement of the backrest, and a locking lever 40, which can be pivoted between a locking position and an unlocking position by means of the coupling mechanism, is provided, which is in its locking position in the use position (figure 2) of the backrest and locks the backrest from pivoting into the non-use position (figure 4), and can be pivoted from its locking position into its unlocking position for pivoting the backrest from the use position into the non-use position.
However, Haglund et al. fails to disclose a seat base, a seat part which is arranged on the seat base and can be adjusted relative to the seat base.
Instead, Sasaki et al. disclose a seat base 15, 16, a seat part which is arranged on the seat base and can be adjusted relative to the seat base.
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 Sasaki et al. and use a rail in the seat of Haglund for the purpose of accommodating user of all shape and size.
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki et al. disclose the locking lever 51 is mounted on the backrest 40 so as to be pivotable between the locking position and the unlocking position and in the locking position rests against a portion of the seat base.
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 Sasaki et al. and place the locking lever on the backrest in the invention of Haglund in order to reduce space 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 7, Haglund discloses the seat base has a guide 9, 30 for guiding the backrest when pivoting between the use position and the non-use position.
Regarding claim 8, Haglund discloses a guide element 30 is arranged on the backrest and is guided along the guide 9 when the backrest is pivoted from the use position into the non-use position.
Regarding claim 9, Haglund discloses the guide element 30 rests against a first end portion of the guide 9 in the use position of the backrest and against a second end portion 9 of the guide in the non-use position of the backrest (see figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki et al. disclose the coupling mechanism 86, 85, 84, 82 for coupling the adjustment movement of the seat part to the pivoting of the backrest has a coupling element 86 which transfers the adjustment movement of the seat part to the backrest.
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 Sasaki et al. and place a sliding element to transfer the disengaging to the locking lever of Haglund because it is simple, time efficient.
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki et al. disclose the seat part has a sliding element 86 and the seat base has a rail and the sliding element is displaceably mounted on the rail.
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 Sasaki et al. and place a sliding element to transfer the disengaging to the locking lever of Haglund because it is simple, time efficient.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki et al. disclose the seat part has a sliding element 86 and the seat base has a rail and the sliding element is displaceably mounted on the rail, wherein the unlocking element 85 is arranged on the sliding 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 Sasaki et al. and place a sliding element to transfer the disengaging to the locking lever of Haglund because it is simple, time efficient.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haglund (6,685,270) in view of Sasaki et al. (7,025,419), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lynn et al. (3,398,987).
Regarding claim 10, Lynn et al. disclose the locking lever 31 rests against the guide element 24 in the locking position for locking the backrest in the use position.
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 Lynn et al. and use place the locking lever to rest on the guide element in the invention of Haglund in order to prevent any accident or injuries.
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