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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “an tilt” should read - - a tilt - -. 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 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-23 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 3 recites “a left and a right driving electric motor assembly fixedly mounted to inner sides of the left and the right base link.” While this would appear to require two separate motor assemblies, the use of the singular “assembly” makes this unclear. Does Applicant intend to specify two separate assemblies or merely one that acts on two sides?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the case" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear if Applicant intends to imply another “case” wherein the toothed plate links are not guided by the elongated holes.
Claim 14 recites “restoring the seat cushion skeleton assembly.” It is unclear to what the assembly is intended to be restored. That is, “restoring” a component implies a changed state that is not otherwise explained or suggested in the claims.
Claim 15 recites “the cushion tilt angle is enhanced” in line 8. It is unclear how an angle could be “enhanced.” Does Applicant mean “increased?”
Claim 16 recites “a normal position” in line 20. It is unclear what might qualify as such a position; perhaps an “initial” or a “first” position would clarify.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the case" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear if Applicant intends to imply another “case” wherein the driving gear are not guided by the arc-shaped rack (which would appear to conflict with them being “permanently kept in a meshed state” as claimed). Further, the claim recites “a left and a right driving electric motor assembly fixedly mounted to inner sides of the left and the right tilt adjustment link.” While this would appear to require two separate motor assemblies, the use of the singular “assembly” makes this unclear. Does Applicant intend to specify two separate assemblies or merely one that acts on two sides? Further, the claim recites “when the driving electric motor mechanism works.” While this has been interpreted as when it is activated, the use of “works” would seem to mean merely functional (i.e. operable but not necessarily operating).
Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, and 19-23 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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, 2, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piotrowski et al. (US Patent Number 11760232).
Regarding claim 1, Piotrowski discloses a seat tilt adjustment mechanism, characterized in that, the seat tilt adjustment mechanism comprises: a left and a right base link (the upstanding member fixed to member 3 for mounting member 15 at 17; not clearly labeled but see at least Figures 2 and 4a) fixedly mounted to a left and a right link (members 3) of a seat frame assembly; a left and a right tilt adjustment link (15.1, 15.2), wherein lower ends of the left and the right tilt adjustment link are hinged to front ends of the left and the right base link (at 17); a left and a right front link (16.1, 16.2), wherein upper ends of the left and the right front link are hinged to front ends of a left and a right link (of 11) of a seat cushion skeleton assembly; a transverse link (18, 20), wherein a left end of the transverse link forms a rotary connection with an upper end of the left tilt adjustment link and a lower end of the left front link respectively, and a right end of the transverse link forms a rotary connection with an upper end of the right tilt adjustment link and a lower end of the right front link respectively (18.1 and 18.2 form rotary connections as claimed and are connected by 20); and a driving electric motor mechanism (including 30), wherein the driving electric motor mechanism can, by means of a gear-rack structure (at least of 13, 14, which are viewed as such), drive the left and the right tilt adjustment link to rotate synchronously, so as to adjust a cushion tilt angle (this is the general manner of operation).
Regarding claim 2, Piotrowski further discloses the gear-rack structure includes a left and a right driving gear (13.1, 14.1 for instance) and a left and a right arc-shaped rack (at least a portion of 13.2, 14.2 for instance) which are meshed with each other, wherein ones of the left and the right driving gear and the left and the right arc-shaped rack are arranged on the left and the right tilt adjustment link, and the others of the left and the right driving gear and the left and the right arc-shaped rack are arranged on the left and the right base link (at least indirectly via their connections to the links).
Regarding claim 24, Piotrowski further discloses a vehicle seat, comprising a seat frame assembly (including 2, 3), a seat cushion skeleton assembly (at least 11), a seat cushion assembly (at least 6), and an tilt adjustment mechanism (including 15, 16, etc.), wherein the seat cushion skeleton assembly is mounted to the seat frame assembly, the seat cushion assembly covers the seat cushion skeleton assembly (while not clearly shown, this would apparently be the case; note that at the very least, such would be inherent as any typical seat arrangement provides a cushion covering a frame/skeleton), and the tilt adjustment mechanism is arranged between the seat frame assembly and the seat cushion skeleton assembly for adjusting a tilt angle of the seat cushion skeleton assembly relative to the seat frame assembly (this is the general arrangement), characterized in that, the tilt adjustment mechanism is the seat tilt adjustment mechanism as recited in claim 1.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Gilbert et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0187396. Piotrowski discloses a device as explained above including the left and the right arc-shaped rack are integrated in the left and the right tilt adjustment link (at least generally) but does not disclose left and right motor assemblies. Gilbert discloses a related device including a driving electric motor mechanism that includes a left and a right driving electric motor assembly (members 13) fixedly mounted to inner sides of left and the right base links, as well as left and the right driving gear (10) mounted to outputs of the left and the right driving electric motor assembly. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide motors as taught by Gilbert in Piotrowski’s device because this could improve operation and reliability for various users.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Gilbert and further in view of Schulz (US Patent Number 10239422). Piotrowski, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose details of the links. Schulz discloses a related device including a tilt adjustment link (3.1) configured as a toothed plate link which has an arc-shaped toothed elongated hole (see at least Figure 7), wherein a driving gear is located in the arc-shaped toothed elongated hole and is meshed therewith and driven to rotate and a rotation angel of the toothed plate link is controlled (this is the general manner of operation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide links as taught by Schulz in Piotrowski’s device as previously modified because this could improve operation and reliability for various users. Note that the paired components would be present as claimed in the combination based on the arrangement of the reference devices.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Gwin (US Patent Number 3933330). Piotrowski discloses a device as explained above including the transverse link is a hollow pipe (at least member 20 is viewed as such) but does not disclose a spring. Gwin discloses a related device including a torsion spring (58) for restoring a seat cushion assembly is mounted in a link (at least as best understood). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a spring as taught by Gwin in Piotrowski’s device because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, and 18-23 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a range of related devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636