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.
Claim 17, 18, 22, 24, and 26-29 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.
Claims 17, 18, and 26 recite the limitation "the thread flanks." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the respective tensioning element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 27-29 recite the limitation "the (two) tensioning elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 18 and 26-29 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on indefinite claims.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 23-25, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kautzner (DE3919378 as provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Kautzner discloses a longitudinal adjuster for a vehicle seat (see at least paragraph 2), comprising at least one rail pair (20, 40) which is formed from a first rail and a second rail, wherein the rails form an internal channel (between the rails) and the first rail is displaceable relative to the second rail in the longitudinal direction (this is the general arrangement), wherein a spindle nut (28 and/or 30) which is connected to the second rail and a spindle (24) which cooperates with an internal thread of the spindle nut and has an external thread are arranged in the internal channel (this is the general arrangement), wherein a spindle gear mechanism, which can be driven by a motor and which cooperates with the spindle, is arranged on an end of the first rail (at the very least indirectly; gears, including at 22, are described in paragraphs 2 and 33, while a motor is disclosed in paragraph 22), wherein a damping element or a damping module (including 34, 36) is provided and arranged such that the spindle and the spindle nut are held in a pretensioned manner relative to one another in the axial direction and/or in the radial direction (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 19, Kautzner further discloses the spindle nut has a lead-in surface in at least one region adjacent to the internal thread in the axial direction (a surface at an end or face would be viewed as such for instance).
Regarding claim 23, Kautzner further discloses the damping module comprises two tensioning elements (34, 36) which are arranged in each case at one end of the spindle nut and are held in a pretensioned manner relative to one another via at least one spring element (38 or 56, which each serve to hold the tensioning elements as claimed).
Regarding claim 24, Kautzner further discloses the respective tensioning element comprises at least one flexible holding portion which is connected to the spring element (an end of the tensioning element 34, 36 would serve as such a holding portion).
Regarding claim 25, Kautzner further discloses the spring element comprises at least two support portions, which are spaced apart from one another, for connecting to the respective tensioning element and at least one support web connecting the support portions (see Figures 1 and 3; a base portion of 38 connects upright portions thereof forming the support portions, while a main body of 56 connects opposite faces forming support portions).
Regarding claim 30, Kautzner further discloses a vehicle seat comprising the longitudinal adjuster as claimed in claim 16 (such is at least inherent based on the description).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20-22, and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautzner in view of Linley (US Patent Number 3170337).
Regarding claim 17, Kautzner discloses a device as explained above including the damping element or the damping module configured to pretension the spindle relative to the internal thread of the spindle nut in a first direction, such that the thread flanks of the external thread are pushed against the thread flanks of the internal thread (this would be the general manner of operation), but does not disclose radial pretension. Linley discloses a related device including a damping element or the damping module (including 6) configured to pretension a spindle relative to an internal thread of a spindle nut radially in a first direction, such that thread flanks of an external thread are pushed against thread flanks of the internal thread (this is the general manner of operation; see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a pretension arrangement as taught by Linley in Kautzner’s device because this could provide improved and accurate contact to ensure user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 18, Kautzner, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above but may not clearly disclose flank spacing. Wide variation in such spacing is old and well-known (see for instance Linley, who appears to show such a design), and as changes in shape require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide spacing as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 20, Kautzner discloses a device as explained above but may not clearly disclose contact with the spindle thread. Linley discloses a related device including a damping element or the damping module (including 6 and optionally 7, etc.) having at least one contact portion with a contact surface which is in contact with a spindle at least in some portions, the contact surface being in contact with the external thread of the spindle (a lower face of 6 makes such contact; see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a damping arrangement as taught by Linley in Kautzner’s device because this could provide improved and accurate contact to ensure user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 21, Kautzner, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above but may not clearly disclose a convex contour. Changes in shape require only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a contour as claimed (to better mate with the spindle for instance) based on normal variation to improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 22, Kautzner, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above and further discloses the damping element is configured in one piece and has at least two spring-elastic portions (opposite sides of Linley’s 7 for instance) which subject the at least one contact portion to a first force in the direction of the spindle nut (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 26, Kautzner, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above and further discloses the thread flanks of the spindle nut and the thread flanks of the spindle are held in a pretensioned manner relative to one another by the damping module such that they are held without play relative to one another (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claims 27-29, Kautzner, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above and further discloses the tensioning elements are in contact with the spindle at least in some portions and the tensioning elements are arranged such that they form opposing end portions of the damping module (this is the general arrangement at least as best understood), and wherein the damping module additionally has a spring element which connects together the two tensioning elements (as in Kautzner’s figures for instance).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a variety of related devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636