June 16, 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 .
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 24 is 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 24, line 8, “the locking arrangement in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat” lacks antecedent basis. Applicant has not defined or claimed a “locking arrangement in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat” earlier in Clam 24 or in Claim 12 from which Claim 24 depends. Applicant has claimed a “locking arrangement” in claims 18 and 22 but does not define that the “locking arrangement” is “ in the transverse direction “. In claim 20, Applicant defines that the “the locking bolt is arranged laterally on the seat structure and extends in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat, and the cutout is formed on the side element and is open forward in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle seat, or the locking bolt is arranged laterally on the side element and extends in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle seat…..”. Should Claim 24 have depended from Claim 20 instead? Applicant needs to make sure that all claimed structures have proper antecedent basis.
The aforementioned problem renders he claim 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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,683,140).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
142
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
156
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 12, Roth et al. teach a motor vehicle seat for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a seat structure with a seat element 22 and a backrest 24, wherein the seat structure is adjustable from a use position, in which the seat element extends approximately horizontally (Fig. 5), via an intermediate position (Fig. 7) into an entry position (Fig. 9), in which the seat element is inclined with respect to the horizontal; and
a slotted guide 75, by which the seat structure is guided such that the seat structure is movable only translationally from the use position to the intermediate position, and is movable rotationally from the intermediate position as far as to the entry position (see the Abstract where it reads “The released links are free to rotate forwardly and slide the carriages on their elevated pins to their rear slot limit positions, whereby the seat cushion travels forwardly along a circular arc, about the link lower pivots, inclining the seat cushion forwardly and downwardly to pass under the instrument panel to its easy entry dump position.” And column 5, lines 58-67 where it reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the seat carriages 70 and upper track members 78 are shown in their easy entry dump positions, inclined forwardly and downwardly from their front pivot bolts 60, with the bolt shown positioned at the carriage slot rear limit. It will be observed that the link 66 is inclined forwardly a predetermined angle "Y" from the horizontal, which in the disclosed embodiment is of the order of 70 degrees. Thus, the link 66 is rotated through an angle of the order of 70 degrees from its FIG. 5 use position to its FIG. 9 easy entry dump position.”).
As for Claim 13, Roth et al. teach that the slotted guide 75 comprises a first guide slot, which extends in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle seat, and a first guide pin 60 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.
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 24, so far as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,683,140).
Roth teaches a locking arrangement in the fact that the pin 60 is “locked” once it moves to either end of the slotted guide 75. The seat is locked in that it can no longer move once the pin 60 reaches the end of the slot, similar to how the “locking bolt 28” cannot move when it is situated in the closed end of the “cutout 30”. It is not clear if Roth et al teach a further slotted guide and locking arrangement 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.. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use two slotted guides and two locking arrangements, or slotted guides and locking arrangements on each side of the seat, to ensure that the seat is firmly locked in the desired positions). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily know that the use of two slotted guides and two locking arrangements allows for a backup locking arrangement in the event of the failure in one. Furthermore, it has been found that the duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art, and in this case it is asserted that duplicate a single spring to be two springs does not provide any unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights