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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 5/1/2026 has been considered with notes and is included in the file.
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 11-30 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an attachment pot configured to be mounted to the vehicle floor” as a component of the claimed device. The specification discloses the attachment pot as formed directly by the vehicle floor or fastened by welding to the vehicle floor (see paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0033]) and further defines the device as only the components shown in Figures 8-13 (see paragraph [0026]). The applicant appears to be adding new matter to the claim. The specification fails to provide written description that shows the inventor possessed the invention as recited in claim 11.
Claims 12-30 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 11-30 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.
Claim 11 lists an attachment pot as an element of the device, which is misrepresentative of the disclosed invention. The claims will be examined as if a system is being claimed with the device and parts of the vehicle combined. The examiner suggests either amending the claim to only read how the device can be configured to anchor to a vehicle floor through a specific attachment pot, or amend to claim a system with components of each and their interaction.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a fourth aperture" without presenting a third aperture prior in the claim or in a claim it is dependent upon, to provide order in the nomenclature. It is unclear if a third aperture is required that is not claimed.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a fifth aperture" without presenting a third aperture or fourth aperture prior in the claim or in a claim it is dependent upon, to provide order in the nomenclature. It is unclear if a third aperture and a fourth aperture are required, which are not claimed.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the compensation element” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitations “the fourth aperture” and “the fifth aperture” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 12-17, 20-25, and 27-29 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 20-22 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 (24/22) 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 ((38) is arranged at a bottom portion of an end of the seat rail, and is generally positioned in a Z direction, Fig. 3), the adapter plate having at least a first hook (40) which extends at one end of the seat rail downward in the Z direction and then extends in the X direction toward an opposite end of the seat rail (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) configured to be mounted to 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 the claim 11 rejection above).
Regarding claim 21, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11, and discloses wherein the stop (80) is designed as a rod which is oriented in the Y direction and is arranged within the attachment pot (Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 22, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11, and discloses wherein the attachment pot is formed as a separate component configured to be fastened to the vehicle floor by welding (col. 5, lines 17-20, welding).
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.
Claims 12, 18-19, and 30 are 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 hook and the second hook 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 hook and the second hook 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).
Regarding claim 18, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen teaches the device of claim 12. As discussed so far, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen is silent as to wherein 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.
In addition to the above, Christensen 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 as modified by Berklich and Christensen 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 as modified by Berklich and Christensen teaches the device of claim 12. As discussed so far, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen is silent as to wherein 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.
In addition to the above, Christensen 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 as modified by Berklich and Christensen 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).
Regarding claim 30, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen teaches the device of claim 12. As discussed so far, Stewart as modified by Berklich and Christensen is silent as to wherein both the fourth aperture and the fifth aperture are provided in the attachment pot, the fourth aperture being on a side situated opposite the second aperture and spaced apart from the first aperture, and the fifth aperture being on a side situated opposite the first aperture and spaced apart from the second aperture.
In addition to the above, Christensen 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., the fourth aperture being on a side situated opposite the second aperture and spaced apart from the first aperture, and the fifth aperture being on a side situated opposite the first aperture and spaced apart from the second aperture (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 as modified by Berklich and Christensen by the repositioning of the second aperture of the attachment pot and adding a third, a fourth , and a 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).
Claims 13 and 23 are 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.
Regarding claim 23, Stewart as modified by Berklich, Christensen, and Duquesnay et al. teaches the device of claim 13, and teaches (references to Duquesnay et al.) wherein the locking element is introducible into the opening by pivoting about the guide rod (the guide rod (19) is a pivot which allows the locking element to be introduced into the opening). Please note in the combination, the opening is the third aperture as taught by Christensen.
Claim 27 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”).
Regarding claim 27, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11. However, Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein the adapter plate, the first hook, and a second hook are provided as separate components that are connected together.
Berklich, like Stewart, teaches a device for anchoring a seat of a motor vehicle (abstract) and further teaches an adapter plate (34), a first hook (62), and a second hook (90) are provided as separate components that are connected together (Fig. 6 exploded view.
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 separate 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 and to allow for free rotation with respect to the adapter plate.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 5496088) in view of Christensen (WO 99/25601).
Regarding claim 28, Stewart discloses the device of claim 11. However, Stewart does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment pot has five apertures that extend in the X direction, the five apertures providing a plurality of Y positions for attachment of the seat.
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 adding additional apertures to the attachment pot as taught by Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to align the seat for better placement for increased flexibility with respect to chair layout (Christensen: p. 4, lines 19-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17, 24-26, and 29 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 11, Applicant argued that Stewart discloses the hooks are attached to a pivotable handle, not to an adapter plate. Additionally, Applicant argued that the first hook is not displaceable in the X direction, which, Applicant argued, is a different mechanism. Therefore, Applicant argues claim 11 is not anticipated by Stewart.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., hook attached to an adapter plate at the bottom of a seat rail, a linear slide-and-hook mechanism, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the instant claim, the adapter plate, which is not further defined in the claim, is “arranged” at a position of the seat rail. As is shown in Stewart, the plate (38) is provided at a bottom, at one end of the seat rail (Figs. 3-5). The plate (38) has a hook (40) extending downward (Figs. 3-5) and then in the X direction toward the opposite side of the seat rail (Figs. 3-5). As one can see from Figs. 4-5, there is a downward Z direction component of the movement of the hook when entering the aperture (82), and further an X direction component of the movement to hook onto (80). Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, and the claim remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Buccini (WO 2017/216721) and Cisternino et al. (US 6224129) teach devices for anchoring seat of vehicles with multiple apertures.
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 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
Prosecution Insights