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 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: “means of several fingers” in claim 27.
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.
Claim 22 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.
Applicant recites the “motor vehicle, comprising: a seat element according to claim 21; and the control element”. As the control element is previously claimed as part of the seat cover (see claim 12), which is claimed in combination with the seat element (see claim 21), the recitation “motor vehicle, comprising: a seat element according to claim 21; and the control element” is redundant, as the control element has been claimed twice. This renders the claim as vague.
Line 4 recites “the electronic control element”. It is unclear if this is intended to represent the same structure as the “control element” of line 3.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15-17, 21-27, 30 and 31, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2004080752A1.
Note a seat cover (see Figures 8-10) for a seat element (14) of a motor vehicle (see line 1 of the abstract), comprising: an electronic control element having a touch-sensitive sensor surface (surface of 4, or 4 and areas adjacent to 4; note that “finger movement only has to take place somewhere in the sensor area”; see lines 30-31 on page 7 of the translation), which control element is configured to be coupled to a control device (actuators and adjusting devices; see line 3 on page 8 of the translation) of the motor vehicle for controlling a vehicle function; and an outer surface portion (outer surface of 5) of a predetermined actuation portion (5) of the seat cover, wherein an actuating action which a user performs on the outer surface portion of the predetermined actuation portion actuates the touch-sensitive sensor surface to provide a control signal (signal going to the actuator or adjusting device), wherein the predetermined actuation portion and a remaining portion (39) of the seat cover are connected to one another without gaps (note “may be covered by a symbol 5; see line 17 on page 8 of the translation).
Regarding claim 13, note the outer surface portion of the actuation portion is formed (at least in part) by the sensor surface (i.e. 4 and its adjacent area).
Regarding claim 15, note the remaining portion (39) of the seat cover is formed by an upholstery surface of upholstery, and the sensor surface (5) and the upholstery surface terminate flush with one another and without gaps. See Figure 9.
Regarding claim 16, note a marking arrangement which corresponds positionally with the actuation portion and which comprises one or more of the following marking elements: a color marking (note the symbol which forms 5; see Figure 1), an impression, an embroidered structure, a stitched structure, a marking cover element, a badge, or a light element. Note the symbol which forms 5.
Regarding claim 17, note an actuation path (arrows associated with 5; see Figure 1) is identified on the outer surface portion by the marking arrangement.
Regarding claim 21, note a seat element (14) for a motor vehicle, comprising: a seat cover according to claim 12; and upholstery (46) which is covered with the seat cover.
Regarding claim 22, note a motor vehicle (see line 1 of the abstract), comprising: a seat element according to claim 21; and the control element, wherein the electronic control element and the control device of the motor vehicle are coupled to one another in order to control a vehicle function.
Regarding claim 23, note the actuating action is capable of being performed by a fingertip of the user. Note “finger movement” as discussed throughout the translation. This necessarily encompasses fingertip movement. Also note, the “touch” sensor only requires a “touch”, regardless of whether it is with a fingertip, or other part of the hand. Additionally, the claim merely sets forth a functional or operational recitation with no additional structure, and therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 24, note the actuating action is capable of being a finger swiping gesture or a finger stroking gesture. Although the translation discloses “sweeping over the sensor” (i.e. swiping), the “touch” sensor only requires a “touch”, regardless of whether it is with a swiping, stroking, tapping, etc. Also, the claim merely sets forth a functional or operational recitation with no additional structure, and therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 25, note the actuating action is a single tap. Although the translation discloses “sweeping over the sensor” (i.e. swiping), the “touch” sensor only requires a “touch”, regardless of whether it is with a swiping, stroking, tapping, etc. Also, the claim merely sets forth a functional or operational recitation with no additional structure, and therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 26, note the actuating action is multiple taps. Although the translation discloses “sweeping over the sensor” (i.e. swiping), the “touch” sensor only requires a “touch”, regardless of whether it is with a swiping, stroking, tapping, etc. Also, the claim merely sets forth a functional or operational recitation with no additional structure, and therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 27, note the actuating action is input by means of several fingers at the same time. Although the translation discloses “sweeping over the sensor” (i.e. swiping), the “touch” sensor only requires a “touch”, regardless of whether it is with a swiping, stroking, tapping, etc. Also, the claim merely sets forth a functional or operational recitation with no additional structure, and therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 30, note the actuation portion and the remaining portion are directly adjacent to one another. See Figure 9.
Regarding claim 31, note the actuation portion and the remaining portion are connected to one another in a force-fitting, form-fitting, and/or materially bonded manner. Note that element 5 is contiguous with element 39 and therefore is necessarily form-fitting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2004080752A1 in view of Buttolo et al (US9865103).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of a checking device which is configured to use the actuation portion to provide a checking signal which characterizes successful actuation of the sensor surface (claim 18); wherein the checking device comprises a light unit which is designed to output and/or to change a checking light signal based on actuation of the sensor surface (claim 20).
The secondary reference teaches configuring a sensor having a touch-sensitive actuator as having a checking device which is configured to use the actuator to provide a checking signal which characterizes successful actuation of the sensor; wherein the checking device comprises a light unit which is designed to output and/or to change a checking light signal based on actuation of the sensor surface. Note as discussed in e.g. lines 39-41 of column 18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by adding to the actuation portion a checking device that is configured to provide a checking signal which characterizes successful actuation of the sensor surface (regarding claim 18); wherein the checking device includes a light unit which is designed to output and/or to change a checking light signal based on actuation of the sensor surface (regarding claim 20). These modifications enhance haptic feedback to a user of the seating assembly.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2004080752A1 in view of Buttolo et al (US9654103).
The primary reference, as modified above, shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the checking device comprises a spring element which outputs a checking noise when the sensor surface is actuated and, in the process, provides haptic feedback.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further modify the primary reference by substituting for the checking light signal type haptic feedback assembly, an assembly that includes a spring element which outputs a checking noise when the sensor surface is actuated and, in the process, provides haptic feedback. The modification provides an alternate, equivalent haptic feedback type, wherein either performs equally as well as the other. No advantage is gained and no problem is solved by using one type over the other, and the choice is merely a design consideration.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2004080752A1 in view of Ito et al (US9654103).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the touch-sensitive sensor surface being a resistive sensor surface.
The secondary reference teaches configuring a touch-sensitive sensor surface as a resistive sensor surface. See paragraph 3 in column 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by substituting a touch-sensitive sensor surface that is a resistive sensor surface for the touch-sensitive sensor surface of the primary reference. This modification provides an alternate, equivalent touch-sensitive sensor surface type for the assembly of the primary reference. Either touch-sensitive sensor surface type performs equally as well, and the choice in types is merely a design consideration.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2004080752A1 in view of Ito et al (US9654103).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the touch-sensitive sensor surface being a capacitive sensor surface.
The secondary reference teaches configuring a touch-sensitive sensor surface as a capacitive sensor surface. See paragraph 3 in column 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the primary reference in view of the teachings of the secondary reference by substituting a touch-sensitive sensor surface that is a capacitive sensor surface for the touch-sensitive sensor surface of the primary reference. This modification provides an alternate, equivalent touch-sensitive sensor surface type for the assembly of the primary reference. Either touch-sensitive sensor surface type performs equally as well, and the choice in types is merely a design consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s response filed March 2, 2026 has been fully considered. Remaining issues are described above.
Conclusion
This Office action has not been made final as it includes new grounds of rejection not necessitated by amendment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/May 19, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights