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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 2/13/2024 has been considered and is included in the file.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 5, “the first and second hooks” should be changed to --the first hook and the second hook--.
Claim 18, lines 2-4, “a fourth aperture, oriented parallel to the first and second apertures, is provided in the adaptor on the side situated opposite the second aperture so as to be spaced apart from the first aperture, into which fourth aperture the first or the second hook is introducible” should be changed to --a fourth aperture, oriented parallel to the first aperture and the second aperture, is provided in the attachment pot on a side situated opposite the second aperture and spaced apart from the first aperture, wherein the first hook or the second hook is introducible into the fourth aperture--.
Claim 19, lines 2-4, “a fifth aperture, oriented parallel to the first and second apertures, is provided in the adaptor pot on the side situated opposite the first aperture so as to be spaced apart from the second aperture, into which fifth aperture the first or the second hook is introducible” should be changed to --a fifth aperture, oriented parallel to the first aperture and the second aperture, is provided in the attachment pot on a side situated opposite the first aperture and spaced apart from the second aperture, wherein the first hook or the second hook is introducible into the fifth aperture--.
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
It is unclear what are the components of the device claimed when parts of the device listed in the claim are a part of the vehicle itself, such as the “attachment pot” in claim 11. The claims will be examined as if it is a system with parts of a device and parts of the vehicle combined. The examiner suggests using language such as “configured to be hooked onto” or similar language to imply that the attachment pot is not part of the device itself.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “L-shaped hook which extends at one end of the seat rail downward in the Z direction and back again in the direction of the seat rail in the X direction”. It appears based on the language of the claim and the drawings that the hook is no “L-shaped”. Additionally, it is unclear what the term “and back again” means in this phrase. The examiner suggests using language to show that the hook after extending downward, extends towards an opposite end of the seat rail.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second hook" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a fourth aperture" without presenting a third aperture prior in the claim, to provide order in the nomenclature.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second hook" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a fifth aperture" without presenting a third aperture or fourth aperture prior in the claim, to provide order in the nomenclature.
Claims 12-17 and 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 5496088).
Regarding claim 11, Stewart discloses a device for anchoring a seat of a motor vehicle on a vehicle floor (Figs. 2, 5), comprising: at least one seat rail (24) which extends in an X direction of the motor vehicle on a bottom side of the seat (Figs. 4-5); an adapter plate (38) arranged at a bottom, at one end of the seat rail, in a Z direction, the adapter plate having at least a first, L-shaped hook (40) which extends at one end of the seat rail downward in the Z direction and back again in the direction of the seat rail in the X direction (Figs. 4-5 show the hook (40) extending downward and then in a direction towards the back of the seat rail); an attachment pot (60) of the vehicle floor (12), the attachment pot having at least a first aperture (82) and a second aperture (82) which extend in the X direction, wherein the first hook (40) is introducible downward in the Z direction into the first aperture (82) and is displaceable therein in the X direction until the first hook is hooked onto a stop ((80), Fig. 5), which stop is arranged within the attachment pot and oriented in a Y direction (Figs. 2, 4, and 5).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart discloses a motor vehicle (Fig. 2 shows the attachment pot mounted to the floorboard (12) of the vehicle, col. 6, lines 59-64) comprising a device for anchoring a seat (14) according to claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 5496088) in view of Berklich, Jr. et al. (US 4759580, hereinafter, “Berklich”) and Christensen (WO 99/25601).
Regarding claim 12, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11. However, Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein, on the adapter plate, there is arranged a second hook, oriented parallel to and spaced apart from the first hook, which is introducible downward in the Z direction into the second aperture, oriented parallel to and spaced apart from the first aperture, and which is displaceable there in the X direction until the first and second hooks are hooked onto the stop.
Berklich, like Stewart, teaches a device for anchoring a seat of a motor vehicle (abstract) and further teaches on the adapter plate (34), there is arranged a second hook (90), oriented parallel to and spaced apart from the first hook (62), which is introducible downward in the Z direction into the aperture (30), oriented parallel to and spaced apart from the first aperture (Fig. 6), and which is displaceable there in the X direction until the first and second hooks are hooked onto the stop (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stewart to include a second hook introducible downward into the aperture as taught by Berklich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased control with additional hold capacity for anchoring.
Christensen, like Stewart, teaches a device for the anchoring of a seat of a motor vehicle, and further teaches, an attachment pot (1/11) comprising a first aperture (3), a second aperture (3), a third aperture (3), a fourth aperture (3), a fifth aperture (3), etc. oriented parallel and spaced apart from the other apertures (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Steward modified by Berklich by the repositioning of the second aperture of the attachment pot as taught by Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to align the second aperture with the second hook for better placement for increased flexibility with respect to chair layout (Christensen: p. 4, lines 19-20).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 5496088) in view of Berklich, Jr. et al. (US 4759580, hereinafter, “Berklich”) and Christensen (WO 99/25601) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Duquesnay et al. (US 6830295).
Regarding claim 13, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen teaches the device of claim 12. However Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen does not explicitly teach wherein, adjacent to the first hook or between the first hook and the second hook, the adapter plate has a slot in an X-Z plane and, in a region of the slot, the adapter plate has a bore which is oriented perpendicularly to the slot, a guide rod is introducible into the bore, a locking element is pivotably arrangeable about the guide rod and is introducible into the attachment pot in a third aperture, which is oriented parallel to and is spaced apart from the first aperture, and an end face of the locking element is pressable against the stop on a side which is situated opposite the first hook.
Duquesnay et al., like Stewart, teaches a device for anchoring a seat of a motor vehicle, and further teaches adjacent to the first hook (20) or between the first hook and the second hook, the adapter plate (10) has a slot (11) in an X-Z plane and, in a region of the slot, the adapter plate has a bore (10d) which is oriented perpendicularly to the slot (Fig. 10), a guide rod (19) is introducible into the bore, a locking element (11/15) is pivotably arrangeable about the guide rod and is introducible into a space to engage with the attachment pot, and an end face (11a/15) of the locking element is pressable against the stop (13) on a side which is situated opposite the first hook (Fig 3 for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stewart modified by Berklich and Christensen to provide a guide rod and locking element as taught by Duquesnay et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further provide a holding of the securely anchored position when required, while still being able to provide a disconnect when required for a more secured positioning of the device.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 5496088) in view of Christensen (WO 99/25601).
Regarding claim 18, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11. However, Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein a fourth aperture, oriented parallel to the first and second apertures, is provided in the adaptor on the side situated opposite the second aperture so as to be spaced apart from the first aperture, into which fourth aperture the first or the second hook is introducible.
Christensen, like Stewart, teaches a device for the anchoring of a seat of a motor vehicle, and further teaches, an attachment pot (1/11) comprising a first aperture (3), a second aperture (3), a third aperture (3), a fourth aperture (3), a fifth aperture (3), etc. oriented parallel and spaced apart from the other apertures (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Steward by the repositioning of the second aperture of the attachment pot and adding a third and fourth aperture as taught by Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide better placement for increased flexibility with respect to chair layout (Christensen: p. 4, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 19, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11. However, Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein a fifth aperture, oriented parallel to the first and second apertures, is provided in the adaptor pot on the side situated opposite the first aperture so as to be spaced apart from the second aperture, into which fifth aperture the first or the second hook is introducible.
Christensen, like Stewart, teaches a device for the anchoring of a seat of a motor vehicle, and further teaches, an attachment pot (1/11) comprising a first aperture (3), a second aperture (3), a third aperture (3), a fourth aperture (3), a fifth aperture (3), etc. oriented parallel and spaced apart from the other apertures (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Steward by the repositioning of the second aperture of the attachment pot and adding a third, fourth, and fifth aperture as taught by Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide better placement for increased flexibility with respect to chair layout (Christensen: p. 4, lines 19-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although the references of record show features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the compensation element as recited in claim 14 along with the other limitations, as well as the slide bushing between the guide rod and the locking element with the other limitations without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Milnar et al. (US 6648393), Watanabe (US 10086723), and Yokota (US 6059345) teach devices for anchoring seat of vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643