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 § 102
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) 1, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito (US 20200223342 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a seat assembly, comprising: a seat base (Fig. 4 element 20); a seat portion (Fig. 4 element 60) movably coupled to the seat base (Shown in Fig. 4); and a seat portion adjuster coupled to the seat base and the seat portion (Adjustment of the seat portion shown in transition between Figs. 3-4), the seat portion adjuster including: a bracket (Fig. 4 elements 31L and 31R) connected to the seat base; a motor operably coupled to the bracket (“Driving unit 7 has an electric motor as a driving source, a reduction gear connected to the electric motor, and an output shaft 70 connected to the reduction gear” Par. [0069] lines 1-3); and a linkage coupled to the seat portion, the bracket, and the motor (Linkage structure shown in Fig. 4 between brackets 31L/R and seat portion 60), the linkage including a first lever (Fig. 4 lever 62a towards Y1), a second lever (Fig. 4 lever connecting element 62a to element 62b toward Y1), a third lever (Fig. 4 lever connecting element 81 to pivot at 62L), and a fourth lever (Fig. 4 lever connecting third lever to element 62b towards Y1); wherein the first lever is rotatably coupled to the bracket and the second lever, the third lever is rotatably coupled to the bracket, the second lever, and the fourth lever; and the second lever and the fourth lever are rotatably coupled to the seat portion (Shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the linkage is a first linkage; and the seat portion adjuster includes a second linkage including a second linkage first lever, a second linkage second lever, a second linkage third lever, and a second linkage fourth lever (Fig. 4 linkage structure as cited above on side toward Y2).
Regarding Claim 13, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11 and further discloses the seat portion adjuster includes a cross member connected to the first lever of the first linkage, the second linkage first lever, and the motor (Fig. 4 element 61).
Regarding Claim 14, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses the cross member includes an offset portion; and the motor is coupled to the offset portion (Fig. 4 element 7).
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.
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) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20200223342 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the seat portion has an extended position in which the seat portion is disposed at a first angle (Seat portion extended position shown in Fig. 4) and a retracted position in which the seat portion is disposed at a second angle (Seat portion retracted position shown in Fig. 3)
Ito discloses the claimed invention except for a difference between the first angle and the second angle is at least 50 degrees. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the angle as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16.
Ito discloses the claimed invention except for a difference between the first angle and the second angle is at least 70 degrees. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the angle as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16.
Ito discloses the claimed invention except for the seat portion is within 10 degrees of vertical in the retracted position. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the angle as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, Ito teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 18.
Ito discloses the claimed invention except for the seat portion is within 20 degrees of horizontal in the extended position. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the angle as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12, 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the third lever and second lever are not rotatably coupled. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the cited third lever of Ito (the lever element connecting element 81 to the pivot shown at element 62L) and the second lever (lever connecting element 62a to element 62b) are rotatably coupled via the pin element at the center of element 62a. As there is no clear distinction of the claimed levers being directly connected, the rejection is maintained. Applicant states that the angular values claimed in the instant application are not disclosed by Ito. The examiner agrees that the cited reference does not explicitly state the claimed angles, however it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use the optimum angles for structural integrity and user comfort. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644 /Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights