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 .
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 11-20 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 claims 11 and 12 it is unclear how the back-molding is structured and arranged. The claims recite that the back-molding both projects from the end portion, and extends into the end portion vertically creating a groove. Referring to figure 7, the back-molding was believed to be the projecting portion at the distal end of end portion 104, which is shown projecting from the end portion. However it does not appear that the back-molding 122, also extends vertically into the end portion creating a groove, as it is unclear what groove is being referenced. Instead it appears the back-molding extends vertically from the end portion creating a projection as seen in figure 7.
In claim 18 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the at least one spring element”. It appears this should read “at least one spring element”.
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) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al.(US10471853).
[claim 11] Taniguchi teaches a method for producing an activation lever(13,9) for a longitudinal adjuster(1), the method comprising: providing a tubular blank(C10 L32-33), pressing an end portion of the blank from a first direction(up-down direction of fig 11); pressing the end portion of the blank from a second direction(left-right direction in fig 11), perpendicular to the first direction, whereby at least one edge(underside of 9B in fig 11) and/or back-molding(bottom of 9A) is formed, and whereby only forming of the external contour of the blank takes place, wherein the back-molding projects from the end portion(fig 5,11), and wherein the back-molding extends into the end portion vertically creating a groove(as seen in figs 5 and 9, the part of the back-molding connected to the rest of the lever extends vertically into the end portion creating a groove defining the beginning of the flat end portion).
[claim 12] Taniguchi teaches an activation lever(13,9) for activating a locking unit(7) for securing a first seat rail(5) relative to a second seat rail(3), wherein the activation lever, in an end portion(9) interacting with a spring element(7B) and/or locking element of the longitudinal adjuster, has a deformed surface(side surface of 9 in fig 11) which is closed perpendicularly to the longitudinal extent of the activation lever, the end portion having at least one back-molding(bottom of 9A), at least one damping element(7A) being disposed on the end portion and connected to the back-molding wherein the back-molding projects from the end portion(fig 5,11), and wherein the back-molding extends into the end portion vertically creating a groove(as seen in figs 5 and 9, the part of the back-molding connected to the rest of the lever extends vertically into the end portion creating a groove defining the beginning of the flat end portion).
[claim 13] wherein 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).
[claim 14] wherein an edge(edge of 9C) which is formed by pressing the end portion is provided on the activation portion(lower surface of 9).
[claim 15] wherein the edge serves as an operative connection to a first spring arm(74) of a spring element(7B).
[claim 16] wherein the edge is configure to protrude in the vertical direction from the activation portion(fig 11).
[claim 17] wherein the back-molding(bottom of 9A) protrudes in the vertical direction from the end portion( fig 5).
[claim 18] Taniguchi teaches a longitudinal adjuster(1) for a vehicle seat(S fig 1), the longitudinal adjuster having the first seat rail(5) and the second seat rail(3), the first seat rail being longitudinally displaceable relative to the second seat rail; the longitudinal adjuster furthermore having the locking unit(7) which has the at least one locking element(7A) for securing the first seat rail relative to the second seat rail, and the at least one spring element(7B) which is held in the first seat rail and impinges the locking element with a pre-loading force, wherein the longitudinal adjuster has an activation lever(9,13), 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 3).
[claim 20] Taniguchi further teaches a vehicle seat(S fig 1) having a longitudinal adjuster(1) as claimed in claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Taniguchi fails to teach a back-molding as recited in claims 11 and 12, that projects from an end portion and extends into the end portion vertically creating a groove. As detailed above, the examiner disagrees. As seen in figures 5,9 and 11 of the flat distal end of the lever forming the back-molding both projects from the end portion, and extends into the end portion vertically, as seen in fig 5, the end of the back-molding connected to the rest of the lever extends vertically into the end portion creating a groove as seen in fig 9.
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 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