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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 11 October 2024, in which claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 30 were amended and claims 4, 5, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, and 31-33 were canceled, has been entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 11 October 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 11 October 2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 14, 18, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the changes below:
“wherein in” be changed to --wherein-- (claim 10, line 1);
“an adjustment position” be changed to --the adjustment position-- (claim 14, line 11), since this feature has already been claimed;
“an energy source” be changed to --the energy source-- (claim 18, line 15), since this feature has already been claimed;
“a threshold value” be changed to --the threshold value-- (claim 23, line 6), since this feature has already been claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 30 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 1 recites the limitation "the motorized adjustment" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a motorized adjustment-- or --motorized adjustment--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the location" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a location--.
In regards to claims 6, 14, and 18, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because the boundaries of the claims are not discernable. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent or dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. Clarification and rephrasing are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a longitudinal direction--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy source-side conductor section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy storage device-side conductor section" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coupling sections" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the at least one energy source-side conductor sections" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one energy storage device-side conductor section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least two coupling sections" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the energy source-side conductor section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the energy storage device-side conductor section" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the coupling sections of the at least one energy source-side conductor section" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the coupling sections of the at least one energy storage device-side conductor section" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one coupling section for the detachable electrically conductive connection" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one coupling section for the wireless energy transmission" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first energy source-side conductor section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second energy source-side conductor section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claims 14 and 23, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because the boundaries of the claims are not discernable. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent or dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. Clarification and rephrasing are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the power supply" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the energy storage devices" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has previously claimed at least one energy storage device, but has not claimed plural energy storage devices.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the different adjustment devices" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least two energy storage devices" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the state of charge" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the normal case" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the quick charging case" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the state of charge" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 24, it is unclear what feature “it” (line 2) is referencing. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the at least one coupling section of the at least one energy source-side conductor section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the at least one coupling section of the at least one energy storage device-side conductor section" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the motorized adjustment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a motorized adjustment-- or --motorized adjustment--.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the maximum amperage" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by rephrasing to read --a maximum amperage--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16, 18, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 30 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowable subject matter is wherein an amperage of the operating current is greater than a maximum amperage of the charging current, in combination with other features of claims 1 and 29, respectively. Oda et al. (US 2020/0346562 A1), Yoo et al. (US 2021/0178990 A1), Yankowitz (US 2023/0187975 A1), Hu et al. (CN 211508726 U), Kastanis et al. (DE 102017006145 A1), Zimmer (DE 102018221465 A1), Blackburn et al. (US 5890779 A), Greene et al. (US 7342370 B2), Jimenez Pino et al. (US 8193746 B2), Hall et al. (US 9318922 B2), Dueser (US 9318922 B2), Lee et al. (US 10468914 B2), Hu et al. (CN 211918435 U), and Yang et al. (US 11932183 B2) disclose an adjustment system for a vehicle seat, comprising an electrically controllable adjustment device for motorized adjustment of a position of the vehicle seat, a chargeable energy storage device for operating the adjustment device, and a charging device connectable to an energy source to charge the energy storage device, but do not disclose wherein an amperage of the operating current is greater than a maximum amperage of the charging current.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses seat adjustment systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights