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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the first cam (20) being coupled to the second cam (30) by means of a spring element (25) such that, when the drive shaft (12) rotates, the second cam (30) also rotates” in claim 1
“the rotation of the second cam (30) is tracked by means of the spring force of the spring element” in claim 1
“the drive shaft (12) can be driven by means of a motor, a gas generator or a spring device” in claim 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations
"the assembly axis of rotation" in lines 13, 28, and 32
“these elements” in line 15
“the rotation of the toothed element” in lines 27
“the rotational movement” in lines 30
“the rotation of the second cam” in line 37
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Also, the term “these elements” is indefinite because it is unclear which elements are being referred to. Applicant might instead specify which elements these are.
Also, the limitation “the first cam (20) hits the unlocking region (44) of the locking element (40) and thus rotates said locking element out of the engagement with the locking element ” is indefinite because this limitation requires that the locking element disengages from itself. If applicant’s intent is to claim two separate locking elements, applicant should distinguish these elements from each other. Keep in mind the extent of the disclosure in terms of support when amending this limitation.
Also, the term “the rotatable assembly being a rest or seat” is unclear. It is unclear what it meant by the term rest; is the a translation error?
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the drive shaft (12) can be driven by means of a motor, a gas generator or a spring device” makes it unclear whether a motor, gas generator, or spring device are required. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the region of the engagement” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitations
"the footprint of the sprocket" in line 2
“the opening angle” in line 3
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Additionally, the limitation “the opening angle of the circle segment being reduced to such an extent that only necessary movement is transferred to the toothed element” is indefinite because it is unclear what the opening angle is being reduced relative to and because it is unclear what movement is necessary. This limitation can not be understood as written.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the term “it” in line 2. This term makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear what ‘it’ refers to.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As such it is unclear whether the motor is required to be able to reset the rotatable assembly.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation “the motor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitations
"the speed" in line 3
“the expended force” in line 3
“the weight of the person” in line 4
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Peters (US 7571963 B2) discloses an apparatus (10) for quickly rotating a rotatable assembly (100) of a vehicle seat, the rotatable assembly (100) being a rest or seat (Peters, abstract, fitting for rotating a vehicle seat), comprising
- a first cam (Peters, figure 3, item 21), a second cam (Peters, figure 3, item 22), a drive shaft (Peters, figure 3, item 10) and a sprocket (Peters, figure 3, item 14), except:
the first cam (20) and the sprocket (14) being non-rotatably arranged on the drive shaft (12) and the second cam (30) being rotatably arranged thereon, the drive shaft (12) being rotatably mounted on the assembly, the first cam (20) being coupled to the second cam (30) by means of a spring element (25) such that, when the drive shaft (12) rotates, the second cam (30) also rotates, the second cam (30) having a first locking contour (32) and a second locking contour (34),
- a locking element (40) having a locking region (42) and an unlocking region (44) that is rotatably fixed to the assembly,
- a stationary latching element (50), and
- a toothed element (60) which is rotatable about the assembly axis of rotation (110),
these elements being formed and arranged such that,
in a first locking position,
- the locking element (40) is engaged with the latch element (50), and
- the first locking contour (32) of the second cam (30) is in physical contact with the locking region (42) of the locking element and secures said locking element in position, and
while the drive shaft (12) is rotated,
- the first cam (20) hits the unlocking region (44) of the locking element (40) and thus rotates said locking element out of the engagement with the locking element (50), while
- the first locking contour (32) of the second cam (30) is rotated out of the locking region (42) of the locking element (40), and
- the sprocket (14) transfers the rotation to the toothed element (60), the toothed element (60) being rotated about the assembly axis of rotation (110) and thus relative to the latching element (50) until an engagement (54) with the latching element (50) limits the rotational movement, and
upon further meshing of the sprocket (14) with the toothed element (60),
- the rotatable assembly (100) rotates about the assembly axis of rotation (110) until the second locking contour (34) of the second cam (30) meets the locking region (42) of the locking element (40), said locking region being formed to stop further rotation of the second cam (30) until the locking element (40) engages with the latching element (50) for a second locking position, and
- the rotation of the second cam (30) is tracked by means of the spring force of the spring element (25) and thus the second locking contour (34) rotates towards the locking region (42) of the locking element (40) in order to secure said locking element in position.
The prior art fails to teach a first and second cam where the first cam being coupled to the second cam (30) by means of a spring element such that, when the drive shaft rotates, the second cam (30) also rotates, the second cam having a first locking contour and a second locking contour.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Claims 2-10 are indicated for depending on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102008046909 A1 teaches a locking device interacting with a sprocket to prevent rotation of the seat
DE 102013224873 A1 teaches a locking device for a backrest rotation system where the locking device is articulated by a locking cam – the locking cam is attached to a spring which biases it to a locked position – there is no second cam or sprocket articulation system
DE 19930363 C1 teaches a locking device for a backrest where the locking device attaches to a sprocket and is articulated by a cam and biases by a spring
FR 2857305 A1 teaches backrest locking system with a cam (which includes a weight capable of being read as a second cam), a sprocket articulation system
US 9108545 B2 teaches a spring attaching to a cam
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642