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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0064], line 2, “the seat” is labeled as element 30 when element 30 previously represented the “front connecting rod”;
In paragraph [0064] in lines 6 and 12-15, “the lower rear hinge axis” is labeled as element 31 when element 31 previously represented the “lower front hinge axis”;
In paragraph [0065], lines 1, “an intermediate front end” is labeled as element 42 when element 42 previously represented the “lower rear end”;
In paragraph [0067], line 11, “the bolt” is labeled as element 60 when element 60 previously represented the “latch”;
In paragraph [0067], line 14, “the bolt pin” is labeled as element 61 when element 61 previously represented the “bolt axis”;
In paragraph [0074], line 3, “the forward direction” is labeled as element 31 when element 31 previously represented the “lower front hinge axis”; and
In paragraph [0076], in line 12, “a forward component” is labeled as element 31 when element 31 previously represented the “lower front hinge axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 7, it is assumed that “the slot” is the same as “the first slot” and is advised that the word “first” is added to “the slot” to ensure clarity;
In line 3 of claim 8, “switching from the active to inactive state of latch” should be written as “switching from the active state to the inactive state of the latch” to ensure clarity; and
In line 1 of claim 11, “the operation c)” should be written as “the step c)” if claim 11 is referring to the “step c)” of claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
“A connecting rod”, which is different from the “front connecting rod” and “rear connecting rod”, in line 10 of claim 1 does not have a written description in the specification.
Claims 1-12 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:
In lines 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, and 29, it is unclear if “in the vicinity of” means the mounted parts need to be mounted on or near, but not quite on, the respective end of each limitation;
In lines 20-21, it is unclear if “a front connecting rod” is the same as, or different from, the front connecting rod from earlier in the claim; and
In lines 27 and 29, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the link rod”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in line 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the front end position”.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the front end position” in lines 2 and 6-7, and “the rear end position” in lines 2-3 and 5, and 7.
Regarding claim 9:
In line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the operation b1)”; and
It is unclear how the lower rear hinge axis can be fixed when, in claim 1, it is stated that “the lower rear hinge axis is movable in the longitudinal direction and that “the elastic element urges the lower rear hinge axis to move forward in the longitudinal direction”.
Claim 8 is directed to “a method for using the seat of claim 1,” and recites only two steps: (a) switching the latch from the active to inactive state and (b) moving the lower front hinge axis closer to the lower rear hinge axis by the retraction distance. It is not clear whether the patentability of claim 8 is determined solely by the recited method steps, or by the combination of performing these steps using the full apparatus of claim 1. The claim does not clarify if all of the structure recited in claim 1 is required in the method, or what happens to the other elements of claim 1 (such as the squab or elastic element) that are not mentioned in the method steps—whether they are required, and if so, how they interact with the claimed method. It is therefore ambiguous whether these elements must be present, or what their role is in the claimed method.
The body of the claim must recite a complete invention, and the preamble (“A method for using the seat of claim 1”) cannot be taken as a claim limitation. As explained in the MPEP, “The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.”
Because the claim does not clearly set forth whether all limitations of claim 1 are incorporated, and does not recite how or if the squab, elastic element, and other elements are involved in the method, the scope of the claim is uncertain. This omission amounts to a gap in the recitation of essential elements or steps, rendering the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 12, in line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the operation b2)”.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kammerer (US-20020125753-A1).
Kammerer discloses a vehicle seat having a folded position.
Claim 1 – Kammerer teaches a vehicle seat (title) comprising:
- a squab with a front edge and a rear edge (element 9’’’ in figure 5C),
- a slideway (element 13 in figure 1) comprising a first element and a second element, the first element being intended to be fixed to a vehicle floor and the second element being configured to slide relative to the first element in a longitudinal direction between a forward end position and a rearward end position, in a forward direction or in a rearward direction, opposite to the forward direction (described in paragraph [0037] as “a pair of seat rails, which upper rail is guided in a sliding manner in a lower rail which is fixed on the vehicle structure”),
- a front connecting rod having a lower front end and an upper front end (element 11 in figure 5C),
- a rear connecting rod with a lower rear end and an upper rear end (element 21’’’ in figure 5C),
- a connecting rod with an intermediate front end and an intermediate rear end (element 29’ in figure 5C),
- a latch (element 25 in figure 1) having an active state (figure 1) and an inactive state (figure 3), in a usage configuration of the seat, the latch is in the active state and holds the squab relative to the second element of the slideway at least along the longitudinal direction (figure 1), in the inactive state the latch does not hold the squab relative to the second element of the slideway (figure 3),
- an elastic element (element 41 in figure 1),
wherein:
in the vicinity of the lower front end, the front connecting rod is rotatably mounted on the second element of the slideway about a lower front hinge axis (element 15 in figure 3, it can be seen that element 11, if released from its own latch element 19, is free to rotate about element 15),
PNG
media_image1.png
260
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
in the vicinity of the upper front end, the squab is rotatably mounted on a front connecting rod about an upper front hinge axis (element A in Image 1 above),
in the vicinity of the lower rear end, the rear connecting rod is rotatably mounted on the first element about a lower rear hinge axis (axis created by the notch in element 21’’’ in figure 5C around element 23 in figure 1), and the lower rear hinge axis is movable in the longitudinal direction (between figures 1 and 3, it can be seen that the lower rear hinge axis created by the notch moves longitudinally),
in the vicinity of the upper rear end, the squab is rotatably mounted on the rear connecting rod about an upper rear hinge axis (element 35’’’ in figure 5C),
in the vicinity of the intermediate front end, the linking rod is rotatably mounted on the front connecting rod about an intermediate front hinge axis (element B in Image 1 above),
in the vicinity of the intermediate rear end, the linking rod is rotatably mounted on the rear connecting rod about an intermediate rear hinge axis (element C in Image 1 above),
the lower front hinge axis, the upper front hinge axis, the lower rear hinge axis, the upper rear hinge axis, the intermediate front hinge axis and the intermediate rear hinge axis extend in a transverse direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (when viewed isometrically, like in figure 4 for instance, the axes are perpendicular to the longitudinal, or fore-aft, direction),
the elastic element urges the lower rear hinge axis to move forward in the longitudinal direction (the lower rear hinge axis is pulled forward in figure 3, as described in paragraph [0033], “the pneumatic spring 41 the presses the seat cushion support 9 together with the seat cushion 3 upward in such a manner that the latter executes a pivoting movement forward, with the coupling point on the front foot 11 as a pivot. The rear foot 21 is pulled forward via the second coupler 31”),
the seat is configured to switch from the usage configuration (figure 1) to a retracted configuration (figure 3) after switching from the active state (figure 1) to the inactive state of the latch (figure 3), by a retracting movement of the rear edge of the squab, moving the lower front hinge axis closer to the lower rear hinge axis over a retracting distance, the retracting movement comprising a forward component in the longitudinal direction (the lower rear hinge axis is pulled forward in figure 3, as described in paragraph [0033], “the pneumatic spring 41 the presses the seat cushion support 9 together with the seat cushion 3 upward in such a manner that the latter executes a pivoting movement forward, with the coupling point on the front foot 11 as a pivot. The rear foot 21 is pulled forward via the second coupler 31”).
Claim 8 – Kammerer teaches a method for using the seat of claim 1, the method comprising, starting from the usage configuration, the following operations:
a) switching from the active (figure 1) to inactive state of latch (figure 3), then
b) moving the lower front hinge axis closer to the lower rear hinge axis by the retraction distance (figure 3, the lower front hinge axis and the lower rear hinge axis are moved closer to one another).
Claim 12 – Kammerer teaches the operation b) is carried out according to the operation b2) by moving the lower rear hinge axis forward, the lower front hinge axis being fixed (the lower rear hinge axis is pulled forward in figure 3, as described in paragraph [0033], “the pneumatic spring 41 the presses the seat cushion support 9 together with the seat cushion 3 upward in such a manner that the latter executes a pivoting movement forward, with the coupling point on the front foot 11 as a pivot. The rear foot 21 is pulled forward via the second coupler 31”).
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.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kammerer (US-20020125753-A1) alone.
Claim 2 – Kammerer teaches the retracting movement comprises a rear seat access movement (figure 3).
Kammerer does not specifically state the seat is configured to perform the rear seat access movement by sliding the second element from the front end position over the retraction distance in the rearward direction relative to the first element, while keeping the lower rear hinge axis along the longitudinal direction.
However, Kammerer does teach in paragraph [0037] that “a very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions can therefore be set” due to the sliding of the upper and lower rails. Sliding a seat as far as possible to allow entrance to a second row of seating would have been obvious, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the “very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions” would be moving the seat either fore or aft to provide the most amount of space.
Claim 6 – Kammerer teaches the elastic element has a front loading end and a rear loading end (either end of element 41 in figure 1), but Kammerer does not teach the front loading end is connected to the lower front hinge axis and the rear loading end is connected to the lower rear hinge axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the front loading end of the elastic element to the lower front hinge axis and connect the rear loading end of the elastic element to the lower rear hinge axis since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 7 – Kammerer teaches a slider (element 23 in figure 1) is slidably mounted in a slot (the notch in element 21’’’ in figure 5C), but Kammerer does not teach the first element has the first slot which extends in the longitudinal direction and the rear connecting rod is mounted on the first element via the slider.
Kammerer teaches the opposite, that the first element has the slider and the rear connecting rod has the first slot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the slider on the rear connecting rod and the first slot, along with the latch to interact with the slider as originally intended by Kammerer, on the first element since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 9 – Kammerer does not specifically teach the operation b) is carried out following the operation b1) by moving the lower front hinge axis rearward, the lower rear hinge axis being fixed.
While not specifically shown, the front connecting rod, element 11, having a latch, element 19, of its own teaches the front connecting rod can act in a manner similar to that which is taught for the rear connecting rod. Releasing the latch on the front connecting rod allows the front connecting rod to pivot and move the lower hinge axis, element 15, rearward towards a fixed lower rear hinge axis. Therefore, moving the lower front hinge axis rearward with the lower rear hinge axis remaining fixed is an obvious operation of Kammerer’s disclosure.
Claim 10 – Kammerer does not specifically teach a step c), of moving the second element of the slideway relative to the first element forward along the longitudinal direction to the forward end position.
Kammerer teaches in paragraph [0037] that “a very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions can therefore be set” due to the sliding of the upper and lower rails. Sliding a seat as far as possible to allow entrance to a second row of seating would have been obvious, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the “very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions” would be moving the seat either fore or aft to provide the most amount of space.
Claim 11 – Kammerer does not specifically teach the operation c) is carried out prior to the operation b).
Kammerer teaches in paragraph [0037] that “a very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions can therefore be set” due to the sliding of the upper and lower rails. Sliding a seat as far as possible to allow entrance to a second row of seating would have been obvious, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the “very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions” would be moving the seat either fore or aft to provide the most amount of space prior to moving the lower front hinge axis and lower rear hinge axis closer to one another.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kammerer (US-2002125753-A1) in view of Kim (US-20240294100-A1).
Kim discloses a walk-in apparatus of a vehicular seat.
Claim 3 – Kammerer teaches in the usage configuration, translate the squab in the forward direction and in the rearward direction, opposite to the forward direction, by moving the second element in the longitudinal direction (sliding via the sliding rails), and cause the rear edge of the squab to retract by moving the second element in the rearward direction, when the latch is in the inactive state (figure 1), but does not teach a single actuator to facilitate the movement.
Kim teaches a single actuator (element 10 in figure 3).
Automating movement functions in vehicle seating is old and well-known in the art. Such movement functions include sliding the seat forward and rearward, leaning the seat backrest rearward, or tilting the seat backrest forward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the actuator of Kim to automate the seat movement of Kammerer.
Claim 4 – Kammerer teaches switching from the active state to the inactive state of the latch allows an emergency movement of the rear edge of the squab, by forward movement of the lower rear hinge axis in the longitudinal direction while maintaining the second element relative to the first element.
Kammerer does not specify that the seat has to be slid forward in order to move the latch from the active state to the inactive state, or vice versa, to allow an emergency movement of tilting the seat forward. It is an obvious function of the disclosure of Kammerer.
Claim 5 – Kammerer teaches the slideway has a sliding stroke between the front end position and the rear end position (sliding via the sliding rails).
Kammerer does not teach the actuator facilitating the movement.
Kim teaches the actuator (element 10 in figure 3).
Automating movement functions in vehicle seating is old and well-known in the art. Such movement functions include sliding the seat forward and rearward, leaning the seat backrest rearward, or tilting the seat backrest forward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the actuator of Kim to automate the seat movement of Kammerer. It also would have been obvious to configure the actuator to limit the movement of the second element relative to the first element, in the usage configuration, between the rear end position and a front end setting position, the front end setting position being between the front end position and the rear end position and spaced from the front end position by the retraction distance because Kammerer already discloses in paragraph [0037] a “very wide variety of longitudinal seat positions”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights