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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "rib" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4, 6, 9, and 14-15 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.
Claim 4 recites “the squab frame comprises one of a slot and a rib, a slider being received in or on the one of the slot and the rib.” It is understood that the slider can slide in the slot 25, however it is unclear what is “a rib”, and how the slider is attached to a rib.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stop relief" in –lines 4, 5 and 6--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “then the first and second reliefs are not in contact and when the slider is in contact with the stop relief.” It appears there are only two reliefs, the first and second reliefs, therefore it is not clear what is the “stop relief.”
Claim 9 recites “comprising an actuator for controlling the movement of the second element.” There is only one actuator labeled on the drawings, it is unclear if “an actuator” is the same as the “linear actuator” or a different actuator. For purposes of examination, Examiner will read the limitation to state that “comprising the linear actuator for controlling the movement of the second element” based on the drawings and discussion above.
Claim 14 recites “the method comprising step i) consisting in moving the second element.” It is unclear what is meant by “consisting in.”
Claim 15 recites “preceding step i), consisting in moving the second element.” It is unclear what is meant by “consisting in.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the linear actuator is mounted at a second end to pivot about a second axis transverse to a front end of the squab frame,” which is already mentioned in claim 1, “a linear actuator mounted at a first end to pivot about a first axis transverse to the second element of the at least one slideway, the linear actuator being mounted at a second end to pivot about a second axis transverse to the squab frame.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche (US 11850974) in view of Schwartz (US 4720143) and Sivaraj (US 10829014).
As concerns claim 1, Roche teaches A vehicle seat assembly comprising: a squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48); at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16), the slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) comprising a first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) and a second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) movable relative to the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10), at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24); wherein: the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) is pivotable relative to the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of the slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) about a third transverse axis, the third transverse axis being in the vicinity of a front end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) opposite a rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) in the longitudinal direction; a first end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is mounted so as to pivot relative to the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16), about a fourth transverse axis; the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) being pivotable relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) about a fifth transverse axis; a stop (Roche, fig. 2: 34) limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10); the length of the stroke of the second element (Roche, fig. 2: 36) relative to the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16), the length of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) and the position of the stop (Roche, fig. 2: 34) being shaped so that a movement of the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) relative to the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) tends to increase the distance between the third transverse axis and the fourth transverse axis, while the second end of the connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is in abutment limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10), causes the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) to rotate about the third transverse axis.
However, Roche does not teach a linear actuator or the second end of the at least one connecting rod is guided in translation relative to the squab frame.
Schwartz teaches a linear actuator (Schwartz, fig. 4: 130) mounted at a first end to pivot about a first axis transverse to the second element of the at least one slideway, the linear actuator (Schwartz, fig. 4: 130) being mounted at a second end to pivot about a second axis transverse to the squab frame.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the vehicle seat assembly as taught by Roche to include a linear actuator as taught by Schwartz in order for the user to move the seat into an easy entry position.
Sivaraj teaches the second end of the at least one connecting rod is guided in translation (Sivaraj, column 6, lines 37-40) relative to the squab frame, in the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the vehicle seat assembly as taught by Roche to include the teachings of Sivaraj in order to better move the seat into an easy entry position.
As concerns claim 2, Roche discloses the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprises a latch (Roche, fig. 5:38) for selectively attaching a rear end of the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) to the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16).
As concerns claim 3, Roche discloses the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprising a device for unlatching (Roche, column 16, lines 33-34) the latch (Roche, fig. 5:38) at least when the second end of the connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is in abutment limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10).
As concerns claim 4, Roche discloses wherein the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) comprises one of a slot (Roche, fig. 5: 30) and a rib, a slider (Roche, fig. 1: 28) being received in or on the one of the slot (Roche, fig. 5: 30) and the rib, sliding in the longitudinal direction, the slider (Roche, fig. 1: 28) being attached in the vicinity of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24), fixed or free to rotate about a transverse axis.
As concerns claim 5, Roche discloses wherein the stop (Roche, fig. 2: 34) is formed by a relief configured to cooperate with the slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) to limit movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction.
As concerns claim 7, Roche discloses wherein the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) comprises a slot (Roche, fig. 5: 30) and the stop relief (Roche, fig. 2: 34) is a non-opening longitudinal end of the slot (Roche, fig. 5: 30).
As concerns claim 8, Roche teaches the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprising two slideways (Roche, fig. 1: 16) spaced apart in a transverse direction of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10), the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) being fixed to the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of each slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) so as to pivot about the same third transverse axis, a connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is mounted between the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) of each slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) and the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48), the two connecting rods (Roche, fig. 2: 24) being connected by means of a cross-member (Roche, fig. 1: 48-3), the first end of each connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) being mounted so as to pivot relative to the first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) of a respective slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) about the same fourth transverse axis, and the connecting rods (Roche, fig. 2: 24) being pivotable relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) about the same fifth transverse axis, in the vicinity of their second end.
However, Roche does not teach the second end of each connecting rod being guided in translation (Sivaraj, column 6, lines 37-40) relative to the squab frame, in the longitudinal direction.
Sivaraj teaches the second end of each connecting rod being guided in translation (Sivaraj, column 6, lines 37-40) relative to the squab frame, in the longitudinal direction; and the fifth axis being movable in the longitudinal direction by translation (Sivaraj, column 6, lines 37-40) of the second end of the connecting rods.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to modify the vehicle seat assembly as taught by Roche to include the teachings of Sivaraj in order to better move the seat into an easy entry position.
As concerns claim 9, the Roche as modified by Schwartz as discussed above teaches the actuator for controlling the movement of the second element.
As concerns claim 10, Roche discloses the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprising two seats arranged transversely next to each other (Roche, column 4, lines 27-29).
As concerns claim 11, Schwartz teaches the linear actuator (Schwartz, fig. 4: 130) is a cylinder (Schwartz, column 4, lines 61-64 ).
As concerns claim 12, Schwartz teaches the linear actuator (Schwartz, fig. 4: 130) is a gas spring (Schwartz, column 4, lines 61-64 ).
As concerns claim 13, the Roche as modified by Schwartz as discussed above teaches the actuator mounted at a second end to pivot about a second axis transverse to a front end of the squab frame.
As concerns claim 14, Roche discloses a method of operating the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) allowing for switching from a first configuration (Roche, nominal position is shown in fig. 1) suitable for accommodating an occupant, to a second configuration (Roche, easy entry position is shown in fig. 5) of easy entry, the method comprising step i) consisting in moving the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) relative to the associated first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32) in a direction tending to increase the distance between the third transverse axis and the fourth transverse axis while the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is in abutment limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10).
As concerns claim 15, Roche discloses the method of operating the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprising a step ii), preceding step i), consisting in moving the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16) relative to the associated first element (Roche, fig. 1: 32), until the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) is in abutment limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10).
As concerns claim 16, Roche discloses the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10) comprising a latch (Roche, fig. 5: 38) for selectively attaching a rear end of the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) to the second element (Roche, fig. 1: 36) of the at least one slideway (Roche, fig. 1: 16), the method comprising a step of unlatching the latch (Roche, fig. 5: 38).
As concerns claim 17, Roche discloses wherein the step of unlatching the latch (Roche, fig. 5: 38) occurs prior to the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) coming into abutment limiting the movement of the second end of the at least one connecting rod (Roche, fig. 2: 24) relative to the squab frame (Roche, fig. 1: 48) in the longitudinal direction, towards the rear end of the vehicle seat assembly (Roche, fig. 1: 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach:
wherein the squab frame comprises a first relief, the at least one connecting rod comprises a second relief and the first and second reliefs are shaped so that, when the slider is moved without being in contact with the stop relief, then the first and second reliefs are not in contact and when the slider is in contact with the stop relief, then the first and second reliefs are in contact so as to prevent the slider from moving away from the stop relief .
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA K THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
JESSICA K THOMPSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights