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 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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the actuator element" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baumgarten et al. (9,238,427).
Regarding claim 11, Baumgarten et al. disclose a head restraint 100 of a vehicle seat, comprising: a support structure 120 which, in a case of a head impact against the head restraint, introduces an impact force into a structure of the vehicle seat and which has an impact body that supports the head impact; a head restraint cushion (col. 11, lines 1-7 discloses foam covering the support) which is provided at least on a side of the impact body facing the head of a passenger sitting in the vehicle seat; an outer skin 127 which encases the head restraint; an active support mechanism provided on the side of the impact body facing the head of the passenger, which active support mechanism 120 moves side regions of the head restraint cushion frontward toward the head during the head impact against the head restraint, wherein the active support mechanism comprises a flexible actuator element 121, 122 which extends in a transverse direction and which is designed such that, in the case of a vehicle collision, the flexible actuator element is brought from an inactive state into an active state (fig. 5C) as a result of the impact force applied by the head impacting the head restraint, and wherein, in the active state, lateral free end regions of the actuator element point toward the head of the passenger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, Baumgarten et al. fail to disclose the flexible actuator element comprises a folding element which is supported, in a central region, on two laterally mutually spaced support elements via two support portions, said support elements being provided on the impact body to the left and right of a vertical longitudinal center plane of the head restraint, and Attorney Docket No. 080437.PH749US the folding element is provided with a folding site in a central portion located between the two support portions. Regarding claim 16, Baumgarten et al. fail to disclose the actuator element comprises a monolithic bistable spring element which assumes, in the inactive state, a first stable state in which the bistable spring element is convex and curves toward the head and, in the active state, a second stable state in which the bistable spring element is concave and curves away from the head, and the bistable spring element is supported, in a central region, on two laterally mutually spaced support elements via two support portions, said support elements being provided on the impact body to the left and right of a vertical longitudinal center plane of the head restraint, wherein the bistable spring element forms, in a central portion located between the support portions, a triggering region for the switchover between the two bistable states. No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gaeng et al. (8,857,904), Sosa (10,538,186), Mizobata et al. (9,283,877).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 /SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights