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 .
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 “seat face upholstery carrier” in claim 28 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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation "the longitudinal adjuster" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-20, 22-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz DE 102016015170 (hereinafter Lorenz) in view of Jungert 2010/0102587 (hereinafter Jungert) in view of Perraut US 2013/0169015 (hereinafter Perraut).
Re. Cl. 16, Lorenz discloses: A vehicle seat (Fig. 1), comprising: a seat substructure (Fig. 1), the seat substructure having a base (60, Fig. 1), a seat frame (50, Fig. 1) and an adjustment kinematic system which acts between the base and the seat frame for performing a height adjustment function and for moving the seat frame and the backrest into an inclined position (10, 20, 30, 100, 200 Fig. 1), wherein the adjustment kinematic system is in the form of a five-bar kinematic system having a first front link (30, Fig. 1), a second front link (20, Fig. 1) and a rear link (10, Fig. 1), wherein the first front link is articulated to the base pivotably about a first rotation axis (5, Fig. 1), the second front link is articulated to the first front link pivotably about a second rotation axis (4, Fig. 1), the second front link is articulated to the seat frame pivotably about a third rotation axis (3, Fig. 1), the rear link is articulated to the seat frame pivotably about a fourth rotation axis (2, Fig. 1) and the rear link is articulated to the base pivotably about a fifth rotation axis (1, Fig. 1), wherein the adjustment kinematic system, has a first actuation drive (100, Fig. 1) for performing the height adjustment function and has a second actuation drive (200, Fig. 1) for moving the seat frame and the backrest into the inclined position (see Fig. 1), wherein, in order to move the seat frame and the backrest into the inclined position by the second actuation drive, an angle between the second front link and the seat frame is variable (see Fig. 1, at rotation point 4), wherein the second actuation drive has an electric motor (200, Fig 1), a gear mechanism (paragraph 0059), and a spindle (210, Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 17, Lorenz discloses: the spindle of the second actuation drive is articulated to the second front link eccentrically relative to the second rotation axis (see Fig. 1, at 22 which is not centered on 4, thus being eccentric).
Re. Cl. 18, Lorenz discloses: the spindle of the second actuation drive is articulated to the second front link eccentrically relative to the third rotation axis (see Fig. 1, at 22 which is not centered on 3, thus being eccentric)..
Re. Cl. 19, Lorenz discloses: the third rotation axis is arranged in front of the second rotation axis (see Fig. 1, 3 is further to the right than 4).
Re. Cl. 20, Lorenz discloses: the third rotation axis is arranged above the second rotation axis (see Fig. 1, 3 is above 4).
Re. Cl. 23, Lorenz discloses: the electric motor (200, Fig. 1) of the second actuation drive are arranged completely below the third rotation axis (see Fig. 1, 200 is entirely below 3).
Re. Cl. 25, Lorenz discloses: the first actuation drive has an electric motor (see 100, Fig. 1),.
Re. Cl. 26, Lorenz discloses: the electric motor of the first actuation drive and/or the gear mechanism of the first actuation drive are arranged in front of the fourth rotation axis (see Fig. 1, the motor 100 is to the right of 2).
Re. Cl. 27, Lorenz discloses: the first actuation drive connects the rear link and the base to each other directly in an angularly adjustable manner (see Fig. 1, by adjusting 10 so that the seat 50 is raised, thus being height adjustable).
Re. Cl. 29, Lorenz discloses: the base has an adapter and the adapter is formed or secured on a seat rail of a base which is in the form of a longitudinal adjuster (see rail 60, Fig. 1 which can be adjusted relative to a complimentary rail).
Re. Cls. 16, and 22-25, Lorenz does not disclose a backrest which is articulated to the seat substructure; the second actuation drive includes a spindle nut (Cl. 16), a spacing between the second rotation axis and the third rotation axis is greater than a spacing between the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis (Cl. 22), the electric motor of the second actuation drive and the gear mechanism of the second actuation drive are arranged completely below the third rotation axis (Cl. 23), when changing the seat frame and the backrest into the inclined position, an inclination angle of the seat face relative to the vertical direction is changed by the same amount as an inclination angle of the backrest relative to the vertical direction (Cl. 24), or the first actuation drive includes a gear mechanism, a spindle nut and a spindle (Cl. 25). Jungert discloses a vehicle seat (Fig. 1) which includes a seat substructure (2, 10-11, 5-9 Fig. 1) and a backrest (3, Fig. 1) which is articulated to the seat substructure (at 4, Fig. 1); a spacing between the second rotation axis (9, Fig. 1) and the third rotation axis (at G3, Fig. 1) is greater than a spacing between the first rotation axis (G4, Fig. 1) and the second rotation axis (9, Fig. 1); when changing the seat frame and the backrest into the inclined position (using 7, Fig. 1), an inclination angle of the seat face relative to the vertical direction is changed by the same amount as an inclination angle of the backrest relative to the vertical direction (see Fig. 1, capable of changing by the same angular value using EM1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lorenz device to have a backrest articulated to the seat substructure as disclosed by Jungert with reasonable expectation of success to provide adjustable support for a drivers back which would increase comfort of the vehicle occupant. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the first and second front links of Lorenz to be dimensioned as disclosed by Jungert since it has been held obvious that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Re. Cls. 16, and 23, Lorenz does not disclose the second actuation drive includes a spindle nut (Cl. 16), the electric motor of the second actuation drive and the gear mechanism of the second actuation drive are arranged completely below the third rotation axis (Cl. 23) or the first actuation drive includes a gear mechanism, a spindle nut and a spindle (Cl. 25). Perraut discloses a vehicle seat (Fig. 1) which includes an adjustable link (22, Fig. 2) that is driven to rotated via an actuation drive (12, Fig. 2) that includes an electric motor (46, Fig. 3), a gear mechanism (50, Fig. 3), a spindle nut (52, Fig. 3) and a spindle (36, Fig. 3). Re. Cl. 25, Perraut discloses an actuation drive (12, Fig. 2) which functions to pivot link (22, Fig. 2) relative to base (20); wherein the actuation drive includes an electric motor (46, Fig. 3), a gear mechanism (50, Fig. 3), a spindle nut (52, Fig. 3) and a spindle (36, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second actuation drive of Lorenz to be structured as disclosed by Perraut with reasonable expectation of success since Perraut states that such a modification transfers rotational motion into linear motion of the rod relative to the housing (Paragraph 0030). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first actuation drive of Lorenz with the actuation drive of Perraut with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result (i.e. causing rotational motion of a link to drive movement in a seat apparatus). KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Re. Cl. 23, the combination of Lorenz in view of Perraut would disclose the gear mechanism completely below the third rotation axis since as seen in Fig. 3 of Perraut, the gear mechanism (50) is located relative to the motor (46) and the motor in Lorenz is shown as completely below the rotation axis (3, see Fig. 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Jungert in view of Perraut as applied above, and further in view of Handigol US 2019/01523252 (hereinafter Handigol).
Re. Cl. 21, the combination discussed above does not disclose the third rotation axis is arranged in front of the first rotation axis. Handigol discloses a vehicle seat adjustment apparatus (Fig. 6b) which includes a first front link (50, Fig. 6b) pivotally connected to a base (4, Fig. 6b) at a first rotation axis (P5), a second front link (60), the second front link pivotally attached to a seat substructure (1) at a third pivot axis (P4) wherein the third rotation axis is arranged in front of the first rotation axis (see Fig. 6b, P4 is further to the end of 4 than P5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lorenz device so that its third pivot axis is located closer to the end of the base as disclosed by Handigol since it has been held obvious that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Jungert in view of Perraut as applied above, and further in view of Roemer DE 10135857 (hereinafter Roemer).
Re. Cl. 28, the combination discussed above does not disclose a seat face inclination adjuster, a seat face upholstery carrier is pivotably articulated to the seat frame about a sixth rotation axis and an angle between the seat face upholstery carrier and the seat frame is adjustable by a third actuation drive. Roemer discloses a seat apparatus (Fig. 1) which includes a seat face inclination adjuster (5, Fig. 1), a seat face upholstery carrier (5a, Fig. 1) is pivotably articulated to the seat frame (at 5b, Fig. 1) about a sixth rotation axis (5b, Fig. 1) and an angle between the seat face upholstery carrier and the seat frame is adjustable by a third actuation drive (6, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Lorenz, Jungert and Perraut device to include the seat face upholstery carrier as disclosed by Roemer with reasonable expectation of success to provide variable cushion support, thus enabling the user to customize whether they want more or less support on their legs/bottom.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz in view of Jungert in view of Perraut as applied above, and further in view of Nakamura US 2019/0308527 (hereinafter Nakamura).
Re. Cl. 30, Lorenz discloses that the longitudinal adjuster has at least one seat rail (see Fig. 1, 60) but does not disclose a floor rail which can be connected to a vehicle floor and on which the seat rail is displaceably guided, and has a fourth actuation drive for displacing the seat rail relative to the floor rail. Nakamura discloses an alternate vehicle seat (Fig. 1) which includes a longitudinal adjuster (36) having at least on seat rail (40) and a floor rail (38) which can be connected to a vehicle floor and on which the seat rail is displaceably guided (see Fig. 1, in the FR direction), and has a fourth actuation drive (42) for displacing the seat rail relative to the floor rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Jungert longitudinal adjuster to be structured as disclosed by Nakamura with reasonable expectation of success since Nakamura states that such a modification allows the rails to slide along the front-rear direction using driving force from a slide motor (Paragraph 0041). Such a modification would enable for easier entry/exit into a back seat of a two door vehicle for instance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bauer US 5979985, Jungert US 2010/0102586, and Yamada US 2010/0253110 disclose other known vehicle seats presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights