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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27-Apr-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2 and 12-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been maintained.
Applicant has argued that the reference to Kramer fails to show or teach the newly recited limitation directed to a compensating configuration for a cushion frame inclination, wherein the cushion front frame is maintained within a predetermined horizontal range. The rejection has been updated to explain the following: the rotation of the cushion front frame portion (570) is shown in the figures (figs. 12-14) to be upward and forward, the cushion front frame (514) rotation being linked to the lifting of the inclined cushion frame is considered to meet the limitation “to compensate”, and the “predetermined horizontal range” reads on the horizontal distance traveled by the cushion front frame between the foot section (532) and the follower bracket (576).
Applicant has argued that the reference to Kramer fails to show or teach the newly recited limitation “in an upward direction to counteract a rotation of the cushion frame” directed to the rotation of the cushion front frame. The rejection has been updated to explain that the upward rotation of the cushion front frame is linked to the rotation of cushion frame by linkages and pivot point (580) in such a way that the rotation of cushion front frame portion (570) is considered “to counteract” the relative rotation of the cushion frame portion (560).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term "compensate" newly recited in claim 1 and the term "counteract" newly recited in claim 12 affect the scope of the claims but the terms are not recited in the specification; therefore the terms are not supported by the original disclosure and are considered new matter.
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 1-18 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.
The limitation “compensat” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the term “compensate” is intended to define the tilting mechanism. Since the term “compensate” is absent from the specification, the scope of the term cannot be ascertained and thus the limitation fails to clearly and distinctly set forth how the rotation of the cushion front frame relates to or affects the inclination of the cushion frame.
The limitation “to counteract a rotation of the cushion frame” in claim 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the term “counteract” is intended to define the claimed invention. Since the term “counteract” is absent from the specification, the scope of the term cannot be ascertained and thus the limitation fails to clearly and distinctly set forth how the rotation of the cushion front frame relates to or affects the rotation of the cushion frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer (US 8328283).
Claim 1- Kramer discloses a chair seat (510) having the structure of a vehicle seat as claimed below, the seat comprising:
a base (comprised of the underside elements shown in figs. 12-14);
a cushion frame (516) rotatably coupled to the base (figs. 12-14);
a tip-up mechanism (comprising link 544, bracket 554, motor 538) engaged to the cushion frame and the base and configured to rotate the cushion frame with respect to the base (col. 18: 22-39);
a cushion front frame (514) rotatably coupled to a front portion of the cushion frame (via frame portions 570, 560); and
a tilting mechanism (comprising bracket 584, frame portions 560, 570) mounted on the cushion frame (516) and configured to rotate a rear of the cushion front frame (514) upward and forward with respect to the cushion frame to compensate for an inclination of the cushion frame caused by the tip-up mechanism (544, 554, 538), so as to maintain a posture of the cushion front frame within a predetermined horizontal range while supporting lower limbs or buttocks of a passenger during a change in posture of the passenger (col. 18: 40-60).
Figures 12-14 show that the cushion frame (516) has a slightly inclined orientation (described as “relatively horizontal” and “generally horizontal”, col. 18: 22-39) throughout its vertical movement, which is caused by the pivot bracket (554) of the tip-up mechanism; wherein the frame (570) of the tilting mechanism is configured with a follower link (568) coupled with the tip-up mechanism to effect the claimed rotation of the cushion front frame which works with (or compensates) the inclined posture of the cushion frame (col. 18: 40-67) within a predetermined horizontal range between the foot section (532) and the follower bracket (576). This operation of the tilting mechanism is considered to meet the limitation “to compensate”.
Claim 2- Kramer discloses the vehicle seat of claim 1, further including:
a seat cushion (20) mounted on the cushion frame (24) and the cushion front frame (22),
wherein the seat cushion includes a front cushion (not shown) coupled to the cushion front frame and a rear cushion (not shown) coupled to the cushion frame (fig. 1, col. 2: 62-63, col. 10: 34-36).
Claim 12- Kramer discloses a chair seat (510) having the structure of a vehicle seat as claimed below, the seat comprising:
a base (comprised of the underside elements shown in figs. 12-14);
a cushion frame (516) rotated with respect to the base to switch between a sitting state (fig. 12) and a standing state (fig.14); and
a cushion front frame (514) rotated with respect to the cushion frame (via frame portions 570, 560) in an upward direction to counteract a rotation of the cushion frame to maintain a posture within a predetermined horizontal range (defined between the foot section 532 and the follower bracket 576) while the cushion frame switches between the sitting state and the standing state.
The figures show that the cushion front frame (514) rotates upwardly toward the front of the seat, wherein the rotation (about pivot point 580) is actuated via the relative rotation (also about pivot point 580) of the cushion frame portion via the follower link (568) of a tilting mechanism. This operation of the tilting mechanism is considered to meet the limitation “to counteract”.
Claim 13- Kramer discloses the vehicle seat of claim 12, further including:
a seat cushion mounted on the base,
a seat cushion (20) mounted on the cushion frame (24) and the cushion front frame (22),
wherein the seat cushion includes a front cushion (not shown) coupled to the cushion front frame and a rear cushion (not shown) coupled to the cushion frame (fig. 1, col. 2: 62-63, col. 10: 34-36), and
wherein the cushion front frame (22) is rotated with respect to the cushion frame (24) to maintain the front cushion in the posture within the predetermined horizontal range while the cushion frame switches between the sitting state and the standing state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights