March 7, 2026
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 12-13, 17, and 24 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.
In Claim 12, Applicant defines that “by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position”. However, this language is unclear and confusing since the “slotted guide 10”, as a whole, allows the “vehicle seat 2” to move or slide in a longitudinal direction from the “use position”, shown in Fig. 1, to the “intermediate position”, shown in Fig. 2, and finally pivoted into the “entry position”, shown in Figure 3. The “pivotable” movement is not “translational” movement. With this movement explained, the sliding and pivotable movement of the “vehicle seat 2” allowed by the “slotted guide 10” is not “only translational” movement but also pivotal movement. Therefore, it is not clear how Applicant can define that “the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position” when both longitudinal and pivotal movement occurs.
The aforementioned problem renders the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 12 and 24, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,683 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
162
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
210
156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
182
118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 12, Becker et al. teach a motor vehicle seat for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a seat structure with a seat element 112 and a backrest 114, wherein the seat structure is adjustable from a use position (Fig. 1A), in which the seat element extends approximately horizontally, via an intermediate position (Fig. 1B) into an entry position (Fig. 1C), in which the seat element is inclined with respect to the horizontal; and
a slotted guide 115, by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position.
As for Claim 24, Becker et al. further comprises:
a further slotted guide which is arranged on a side of the seat structure opposite the slotted guide in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat and is formed mirror- symmetrically to the slotted guide with respect to a longitudinal center plane of the motor vehicle seat, and/or
a further locking arrangement which is arranged on a side of the seat structure opposite the locking arrangement in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat and is formed mirror-symmetrically to the locking arrangement with respect to a longitudinal center plane of the motor vehicle seat.
Claims 12-13 and 24, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,649,956 B2).
PNG
media_image4.png
304
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
304
178
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
300
172
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 12, Lehmann et al. teach a motor vehicle seat for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a seat structure with a seat element 3 and a backrest 5, wherein the seat structure is adjustable from a use position (Figures 4-5), in which the seat element extends approximately horizontally, via an intermediate position (Figures 6-7) into an entry position (Figures 8-9), in which the seat element is inclined with respect to the horizontal; and
a slotted guide 92, by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position.
As for Claim 13, Lehmann et al. teach that the slotted guide comprises a first guide slot 92b, which extends in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle seat, and a first guide pin 102 which extends in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat and is guided displaceably in the first guide slot, and
the first guide slot or the first guide pin is connected rigidly to the seat structure and the first guide pin or the first guide slot is arrangeable in a manner fixed on bodywork of the vehicle.
As for Claim 24, Lehmann et al. further comprises:
a further slotted guide which is arranged on a side of the seat structure opposite the slotted guide in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat and is formed mirror- symmetrically to the slotted guide with respect to a longitudinal center plane of the motor vehicle seat, and/or
a further locking arrangement which is arranged on a side of the seat structure opposite the locking arrangement in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat and is formed mirror-symmetrically to the locking arrangement with respect to a longitudinal center plane of the motor vehicle seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-23 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended Claim 12, to define that “the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position.”. As explained above, this limitation is confusing since the “vehicle seat 2” of the present invention when moving from the “use position” to the “entry position“, undergoes both longitudinal and pivotal movement. It is not clear how Applicant can define that the “slotted guide, by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position” when the “slotted guide 10” is responsible for both translational and pivotal movement, as shown in Figures 1-3. It is also unclear as to how Applicant believes the amendment to Claim 12 renders Claim 12 patentably distinct over the prior art of record, especially since both Becker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,683 B2) and Lehmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,649,956 B2) moves in a similar manner to that of the present invention and the path of movement of both Becker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,683 B2) and Lehmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,649,956 B2) from the use position to the entry position is also similar to that of the present invention. Therefore, Becker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,683 B2) and Lehmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,649,956 B2) teach slotted guides, by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position, as far as the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as the entry position in as much as the present invention does.
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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636