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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the seat base support-part is displaceable relative to the seat base base-part by means of a sliding device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
The following claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9 recite the phrase “designed to/for/in/such that”. Recommend to rephrase or to remove the “designed” clause to avoid possible indefiniteness.
Claim 1 line 4 contains punctuation typo “ ;, ”.
Claim 3 recites “a first rail unit and a second rail unit each” then later “wherein the rail units are spaced apart from one another”. Recommend rephrasing to “wherein the first and second rail units…” or similar, to avoid any possible indefiniteness.
Claim 4 recites “the first rail element is connected to the seat base support-part and the second rail element” then later “the rail elements” and is similarly objected to as claim 3 above.
Claim 6 recites “a first stop element is connected to the rotational unit and a second stop element is connected to the sliding device, and later “the stop elements” and is similarly objected to as claim 3 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 6-11 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 claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 4 recites “in each case”. However, it is not clear from the claim or the prior independent claim what “each case” refers to.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in such a way" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " in such a way"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “and wherein the stop elements are designed such that the stop elements can interact with one another”. the phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "are designed such that"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second stop element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should this this claim be dependent upon claim 6, which recites the stop element?
Claims 7, 9-11 are rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al (US 20190143849) in view of Murray (US 20170210251).
In regards to claim 1, Murakami discloses a vehicle seat, comprising:
a seat part (Fig. 2 ref. 1a);
a seat base support-part arranged below the seat part (Fig. 12 ref. 13), which is provided and designed to support the seat part (Fig. 12 ref. 13 supports ref. 1a);, and
a seat base base-part (Fig. 2 ref. 4), wherein the seat base support-part is displaceable relative to the seat base base-part by means of a sliding device (Fig. 2 ref. 6) along a displacement direction (Fig. 2 ref. 4 disclosed as vehicle floor),
wherein a rotational unit is provided (Fig. ref. 31), which is provided and designed for the seat part to be rotatable relative to the seat base support-part about an axis of rotation (as seen in Figs. 11 and 12), and
Murakami does not expressly disclose:
wherein when the seat base support-part is displaced, a displacement position of the seat base support-part is dependent on an angle of rotation of the rotational unit and when the seat part is rotated, the angle of rotation of the rotational unit is dependent on the displacement position of the seat base support-part.
Murray teaches a seat base support, Fig. 1 ref. 30, which when linearly translates in a direction, the position of the rotation unit is dependent upon the displacement of the translated movement ([0018] discloses dependance of rotation on the linear displacement of the base “the first swivel stop (42) moves away from the second swivel stop (43), thereby increasing the distance the seat pan (32) is able to rotate relative the base plate (35) before the first swivel stop (42) contacts the second swivel stop (43). Thus, in this base plate position there a greater range of rotation of the operator seat (10)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Murakami with Murray by providing the means for when the seat base support-part is displaced, a displacement position of the seat base support-part is dependent on an angle of rotation of the rotational unit and when the seat part is rotated, the angle of rotation of the rotational unit is dependent on the displacement position of the seat base support-part in order to prevent the seat from fully rotating where space is not available for the seat.
In regards to claim 2, Murakami discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein when the seat base support-part is displaced, the angle of rotation is limited as a function of the displacement position (Murakami as combined, Murray [0018] detailed in claim 1 rejection), and when the seat part is rotated, the angle of rotation is limited as a function of the displacement position (Murakami as combined, Murray [0018] detailed in claim 1 rejection).
In regards to claim 3, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein the sliding device has a first rail unit and a second rail unit (Murakami Fig. 3 refs. 23) each with a first rail element and a second rail element (Murakami 0048] “The guide rails 23 each include a fixed rail 24 and a sliding member 25”), wherein the rail units are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the displacement direction (Murakami separation seen at least in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 4, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 3, wherein in each case, the first rail element is connected to the seat base support-part and the second rail element is connected to the seat base base-part (Murakami refs. 10 connected to ref. 13 by way of one or more intermediate elements) and the rail elements are designed in relation to one another in such a way that the first rail element can be displaced relative to the second rail element (Murakami as seen in Figs. 11 and 12 with regards to ref. 23, rail elements are displaced relative to one another).
In regards to claim 5, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein the rotational unit is connected to the seat base support-part (Murakami as seen at least in Fig. 2 with regards to ref. 5, rotating device connected to ref. 13 rail elements, are connected to one another by way of one or more intermediate elements).
In regards to claim 6, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein a first stop element is connected to the rotational unit (Murakami ref. 37 connected to the rotational unit by way of one or more intermediate elements) and a second stop element is connected to the sliding device (Murakami ref. 26 connected to the sliding device by way of one or more intermediate elements), and wherein the stop elements are designed such that the stop elements can interact with one another (Murakami refs. 37 and 26 can interact by way of movement in constrain of guide).
In regards to claim 7, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 6, wherein the second stop element is fixedly connected to the seat base base-part (Murakami ref. 26 fixedly connected to the seat base base-part by way of one or more intermediate elements).
In regards to claim 8, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 3, wherein the second stop element is arranged between the first rail unit and the second rail unit as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the displacement direction (Murakami ref. 26, as seen in Fig. 11 from the RHS, arranged between the first rail unit and the second rail unit, refs. 23).
In regards to claim 9, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 6, wherein the first stop element and the second stop element are designed to overlap one another when viewed in the displacement direction (Murakami refs. 26, 37 as seen in Fig. 11 ref. 37 sits above a portion of ref. 26, causing an overlap).
In regards to claim 10, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 6, further comprising: a first connecting element (Murakami Figs. 3, 6 ref. 10); and a second connecting element (Murakami Figs. 3, 6 ref. 10 mirrored opposite side), wherein the first connecting element is arranged below the first rail unit and the second connecting element is arranged below the second rail unit (Murakami as seen in Fig. 6, ref. 10 below ref. 23) and the second stop element is connected to the first connecting element (Murakami as seen Fig. 3 ref. 26 connected by way of one or more intermediate elements to ref. 10).
In regards to claim 11, Murakami as combined discloses the vehicle seat according to claim 6, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the first stop element, viewed along the displacement direction, is arranged in front of the second stop element. However, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute the arrangement of Murakami whereby the first stop element, viewed along the displacement direction, is arranged in front of the second stop element in order to provide a secure fastening point for the seat, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display seats and seat bases which both translate and rotate. The translating is independent of the rotation movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642