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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/24/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 14, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if “at least one slotted support member” is meant to be the same “slotted support member” as that of claim 11.
Claim 22 recites the limitations "the first side portion" in lines 6 and 15, and “the second side portion” in lines 6 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed the first and second side portions are the same as the first and second side members.
Also regarding claim 22, it is unclear if “at least on slotted guiding member”, “at least one slotted support member”, and “at least one journal” are the same as the “slotted guiding member”, “slotted support member”, and “journal”, respectively, of the same claim. The mentioned elements are assumed to be the same.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear if “at least one slotted guiding member” and “at least one journal” are the same as the “slotted guiding member” and “journal”, respectively, of the same claim. The mentioned elements are assumed to be the same.
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.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canteleux (FR-2714340-A1) in view of Reichmann (DE-4128160-A1).
Canteleux discloses an adjustable seat frame where the backrest is comprising of two parts and pivot at a common point. Reichmann discloses a vehicle seat with a movable backrest.
Claim 11 – Canteleux teaches a motor vehicle seat (in the description, “vehicle seats, in particular motor vehicles”), comprising:
a) a first seat component (element 1 in figure 1),
b) a second seat component (element 2 in figure 1) which can be pivoted about a pivot axis (the axis created along the two element 3’s in figure 1) relative to the first seat component, the second seat component having a slotted guiding member (element 5 in figure 3),
c) a journal (element 6 in figure 3) which is movably guided in the slotted guiding member of the second seat component, and
d) an actuator (in the description, “The pinion can be controlled directly or indirectly by a wheel accessible to a seat user, or by an electric motor”) for displacing the journal within the slotted guiding member, wherein the first seat component has a slotted support member (element 4 in figure 3) in which the journal is movably guided, wherein the slotted guiding member and the slotted support member intersect with each other in an intersection region (figure 1).
Canteleux does not teach the actuator comprises a spindle gear with a gear housing coupled to the second seat component and a threaded spindle rotatable about a spindle longitudinal axis adapted to move the journal within the slotted guiding member.
Reichmann teaches the actuator comprises a spindle gear (element 62 in figure 5) with a gear housing (element 48 in figure 5) and a threaded spindle (element 60 in figure 5).
Spindle gears and threaded spindles, as taught by Reichmann, are an old and well-known way to convert rotational movement into translational movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the spindle gear, gear housing, and threaded spindle of Reichmann as the actuator disclosed by Canteleux.
Claim 12 – Canteleux teaches that by displacing the journal within the slotted guiding member, the intersection region can be displaced along the slotted guiding member, whereby a relative angular position between the first seat component and the second seat component can be adjusted (in the description, when “the upper frame 2 is in a raised position, that is to say it forms an angle less than 180 [degrees] with the lower frame 1”).
Claim 13 – Canteleux teaches the slotted guiding member and the slotted support member are arranged eccentrically relative above the pivot axis (slots are located above the axis created by elements 3 in figure 1).
Claim 14 – Canteleux teaches at least one slotted support member and the journal are arranged in each case at each of two sides of the second seat component (in figure 3, element
2
1
has two sides, one to go on either side of element
1
1
, and each side features a slotted support member, element 5, and a journal, element 6).
Claim 15 – Canteleux teaches the first seat component and the second seat component overlap each other in an overlapping region, wherein the slotted guiding member and the slotted support member are arranged in the overlapping region (the overlap is taught in figures 1-3).
Claim 16 – Canteleux teaches the journal and the slotted guiding member in at least one pivot direction forming an end stop for the pivot movement of the second seat component relative to the first seat component about the pivot axis (see the end of the slot in Fig. 3).
Claim 17 – Canteleux teaches the journal and the slotted support member in at least one pivot direction form an end stop for the pivot movement of the second seat component relative to the first seat component about the pivot axis (see the end of the slot in Fig. 3).
Claim 18 – Canteleux teaches the vehicle seat is an integrated-belt seat (in the description, “a seat belt retractor which is fixed to the support of the second frame”).
Claim 19 – Canteleux teaches a belt outlet location is integrated in the second seat component (in the description, “a seat belt retractor which is fixed to the support of the second frame”).
Claim 20 – Canteleux teaches the first seat component has a first backrest side portion (element
1
2
in figure 1) and a second backrest side portion (element
1
1
in figure 1), wherein the second backrest side portion in a transverse direction is arranged closer to the belt outlet location (element 13 in figure 1) than the first backrest side portion, and teaches the second backrest side portion having two profiles that are connected to form a hollow profile (element
1
1
in figure 1) and having the slotted support members in the profiles (figure 3) but does not teach the profiles of the second backrest side portions being metal sheets.
(It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metal sheets as the material of the second backrest side portion profiles since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.)
Claim 21 – Canteleux teaches the first seat component comprises a backrest lower portion of a backrest and the second seat component comprises a backrest upper portion (figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 22 - Canteleux teaches a motor vehicle seat (in the description, “vehicle seats, in particular motor vehicles”), comprising:
a) a first seat component (element 1 in figure 1),
b) a second seat component (element 2 in figure 1) which can be pivoted about a pivot axis (the axis created along the two element 3’s in figure 1) relative to the first seat component, the second seat component having a first side member (element
2
1
in figure 2) and a second side member (element
2
2
in figure 1), and a slotted guiding member (element 5 in figure 3),
wherein the first side portion and the second side portion are on opposite sides of the motor vehicle seat (figure 1),
c) a journal (element 6 in figure 3) which is movably guided in the slotted guiding member of the second seat component, and
d) an actuator (in the description, “The pinion can be controlled directly or indirectly by a wheel accessible to a seat user, or by an electric motor”) for displacing the journal within the slotted guiding member, wherein the first seat component has a slotted support member (element 4 in figure 3) in which the journal is movably guided, wherein the slotted guiding member and the slotted support member intersect with each other in an intersection region (figure 1),
Canteleux does not teach both of the first side member and the second side member of the second seat component having at least one slotted guiding member, at least one slotted support member and at least one journal and it would not have been obvious to modify the disclosure of Canteleux in such a way as there would not have been a motivation to do so.
Claim 23 – Canteleux teaches a motor vehicle seat (in the description, “vehicle seats, in particular motor vehicles”), comprising:
a) a first seat component (element 1 in figure 1),
b) a second seat component (element 2 in figure 1) which can be pivoted about a pivot axis (the axis created along the two element 3’s in figure 1) relative to the first seat component, the second seat component having a slotted guiding member (elements 5 in figure 3),
c) a journal (element 6 in figure 3) which is movably guided in the slotted guiding member of the second seat component, and
d) an actuator (in the description, “The pinion can be controlled directly or indirectly by a wheel accessible to a seat user, or by an electric motor”) for displacing the journal within the slotted guiding member, wherein the first seat component has a slotted support member (element 4 in figure 3) in which the journal is movably guided, wherein the slotted guiding member and the slotted support member intersect with each other in an intersection region (figure 1),
a first side member (element
2
1
in figure 2) of the second seat component and a second side member (element
2
2
in figure 1), and
an electric motor (in the description, “The pinion can be controlled directly or indirectly by a wheel accessible to a seat user, or by an electric motor”).
Canteleux does not teach both of the first side member and the second side member of the second seat component having at least one slotted guiding member and at least one journal and it would not have been obvious to modify the disclosure of Canteleux in such a way. While Canteleux does teach the use of an electric motor, Canteleux does not teach the electric motor being centrally located, and it would not have been obvious to make such a modification as Canteleux does not teach the pivoting structure on both side members of the second seat component, and therefore would have been no motivation to do so. Only the first side member has the pivoting structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-23 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights