DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carabalona (US Pat No 10,323,680).
Regarding claim1, Carabalona discloses a seat cable module for operating a seat by transmitting a tensile force with respect to a first cable to a second cable, the seat cable module comprising:
a joint piece (140) that fixes an end portion of the first cable and an end portion of the second cable, pulls the second cable by moving by the tensile force, and transmits the tensile force to the second cable; and
a module plate (110) in which a housing portion (following the arrow of 112) is formed, the housing portion movably housing the joint piece in a direction in which the tensile force acts, wherein
the housing portion opens so as to be capable of housing the joint piece in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the module plate (as shown in figures 2A and 5).
*note: the preamble relating to the seat and operation thereof is considered intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Carabalona discloses a cover (134) that covers the joint piece housed in the housing portion, wherein the cover includes a claw portion that engages with the module plate (via at least 136).
Regarding claim 5, Carabalona discloses a first cable (50a) and second cable (50b).
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(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carabalona.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Carabalona discloses holes being position on the cover and not the module plate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the module plate to includes the disclosed hole from the cover and the cover to include the protrusion, such that the the claw portion engages with a side surface of the hole since a simple rearrangement of parts (e.g. reversing the claw/hole of Carabalona). Such a rearrangement requires routine skill in the art and would function the same as the current practice.
Regarding claim 4, Carabalona fails to disclose the claw portion is formed on two side surfaces of the cover, the two side surfaces facing each other. However, as noted by Carabalona, the cover could be hinged as disclosed or provided separate (see column 4, lines 60-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Carabalona such that a separate cover is provide with attachment means on both sides of the cover. Such a modification would be obvious in view of the disclosure such that the attachment means is provided on both sides (since making it separate would require a means to attach on the currently taught hinged side.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the applicant’s argument of the first paragraph of page 4, relating to the ability to house the joint piece vertically) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant’s claim is exceptionally broad and this argued feature is not required by the current set of claims. Further, the ability to insert and remove joint pieces from above is inherent to the disclosure of Carabalona, since one having ordinary skill would understand how the disclosed sliders are inserted under the ridges 148 (i.e. the ridges 148 have gaps on either side to allow for the projections 146 to fit). As Noted in Carabalona, these positions may be altered such that the sliders can only be positioned in a single orientation (column 5, lines 8-32).
Regarding the mapping of 112, perhaps it wasn’t clear but 112 was merely being used to show that the arrow was pointing to the housing area which is defined by the applicant to movably hold the joint piece. This has been corrected and the arrow is to show the position of the housing for the joint piece.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights