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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/31/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 does not depend from a preceding claim.
In claim 18 in line 5, “the spring element” should read “a spring element”, as it has not yet been introduced in the claim. 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.
Claims 11-16,18-20 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.
In claim 11 there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the tubular blank” and “the end portion of the blank”, as such it is unclear how these elements relate to the claimed method of producing the activation lever.
In claim 12 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the deformed surface”, as such it is unclear how the deformed surface relates to the claimed activation lever.
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) 12,14-16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi(US10654379).
[claim 12] Hayashi teaches an activation lever(6) for activating a locking unit(4) for securing a first seat rail(2) relative to a second seat rail(3), wherein the activation lever, in an end portion(end with 61) interacting with a spring element and/or a locking element(4) of a longitudinal adjuster, the deformed surface(61) is closed perpendicularly to the longitudinal extent of the activation lever, the end portion having at least one back-molding(61) protruding in the vertical direction from the end portion(fig 2), and at least one damping element(5) being disposed on the end portion and connected to the back-molding, wherein the damping element includes a counter element(51) that engages behind the back-molding, such that the damping element is secured to the end portion and retained on the end portion.
[claim 14] wherein an edge(receiving 51 in fig 4a) which is formed by pressing the end portion is provided on an activation portion(end of lever 6 with 61).
[claim 15] wherein the edge serves as an operative connection to a first spring arm(end of 5) of a spring element(5).
[claim 16] wherein the edge is configured to protrude in the vertical direction from the activation portion(fig 4a).
[claim 18] Hayashi teaches a longitudinal adjuster for a vehicle seat, the longitudinal adjuster having a first seat rail(2) and a second seat rail(3), the first seat rail being longitudinally displaceable relative to the second seat rail; the longitudinal adjuster furthermore having a locking unit(4) which has at least one locking element(40) for securing the first seat rail relative to the second seat rail, and the spring element(5) which is held in the first seat rail and impinges the locking element with a pre-loading force, wherein the longitudinal adjuster has the activation lever(6), as claimed in claim 12, for activating the locking unit and releasing the securing of the first seat rail relative to the second seat rail, and the activation lever is impinged with a pre-loading force by the spring element.
[claim 19] wherein the first seat rail and the second seat rail are disposed to be longitudinally displaceable in relation to one another and embracing one another while forming an internal duct(fig 1).
[claim 20] Hayashi further teaches a vehicle seat(ABS) having a longitudinal adjuster as claimed in claim 18.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Taniguchi et al(US10471853).
[claim 11] Hayashi teaches an activation lever for a longitudinal adjuster as detailed above, however Hayashi may not teach the method of producing the lever comprising the steps of providing a tubular blank, pressing the end portion of the blank from a first direction, pressing the end portion of the blank from a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, whereby at least one edge and the back-molding is formed, and whereby only forming of the external contour of the blank takes place. Taniguchi teaches a similar activation lever(13,9) for a longitudinal adjuster(1), and further teaches the method of producing the lever, comprising the steps of providing a tubular blank(C10 L32-33), pressing the end portion of the blank from a first direction(up-down direction in fig 11), pressing the end portion of the blank from a second direction(left-right direction of fig 11), perpendicular to the first direction, whereby at least one edge(underside of 9B in fig 11) and the back-molding is formed(bottom of 9a), and whereby only forming of the external contour of the blank takes place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the method of Taniguchi to produce the activation lever of Hayashi, as this would merely be using known methods for their known functions.
[claim 13] Hayashi teaches an activation lever as detailed above, however Hayashi may not teach that the activation lever has two activation portions which are integrally connected to one another by way of a connection portion. Taniguchi teaches a similar activation lever, and further teaches the activation lever having two activation portions which are integrally connected to each other by way of a connection portion(101, see C21 L28-31 where the releasing member 9 can be used with a loop handle connecting two releasing members). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use two activation portions integrally connected by a connection portion, as taught by Taniguchi, as this would provide a more robust connection and locking assembly on both sides of a seat device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-16,18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights