April 17, 2026
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 8, line 8, the word “adjustable” should be - - adjustably - -.
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 7 and 12 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.
In claim 7, line 2, Applicant uses the word “its” which is improper claim language. The use of pronouns in claim language is now permitted. Applicant needs to change the word “its” to the actual structure to which “its” is referring.
In claim 12, line 1, what is “ormed”? Should “ormed” be - - formed - -?
The aforementioned problem renders the claim vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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 1-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kieser-Neumeyer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,515,565 B2) in view of Borbe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,571,666 B2) or Ferenc et al. (U.S. Patent No 11,034,264 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach a vehicle seat for a vehicle, the vehicle seat comprising: a first seat part 10 being adjustable relative to a second seat part 21,
an adjusting device 21 configured to adjust said first seat part relative to said second seat part, and
an electromotive drive 22 for driving said adjusting device,
wherein said adjusting device comprises a spindle shaft 220, a threaded nut 223 received on said spindle shaft 220, an outer profile 20 and an inner profile 214,
said inner profile 214 being longitudinally adjustable received in said outer profile 20, and one of said profiles 20 being connected with said spindle shaft 220, and said other profile 214 being connected with said threaded nut 223 but is silent as to whether or not the adjustment device includes sliding bushings 221 provided in-between said profiles.
.
PNG
media_image3.png
194
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
242
324
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Borbe et al. and Ferenc et al. teach the concept of providing sliding bushings 26,27 and 62, respectively, in-between said profiles to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle seat, as taught by Kieser-Neumeyer et al., to include sliding bushings in-between said profiles, as taught by Borbe et al. or Ferenc et al., since the sliding bushings would provide a low-friction interface to enable smooth, quiet, and effortless forward/backward movement of the seat and prevent metal-to-metal contact, which helps eliminate rattles and squeaks while maintaining the structural integrity of the seat adjustment mechanism.
As for claim 2, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said electromotive drive comprises an electric motor 226 and a transmission 227 with a transmission housing,
said transmission housing 227 being mounted on said inner profile and/or said threaded nut being connected with said outer profile
As for claim 3, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said transmission housing and/or said threaded nut are received in or on said profile by positive locking, see the specification at column 7, lines 13-18 where it reads “The spindle nut 223 is encased, together with a drive element 224 arranged on a drive shaft 225, in a gear housing 222 (shown in dashed lines in FIG. 3) that is connected to an adjustment rail 214 of the adjustment assembly 21, and thereby axially secured relative to the adjustment rail 214 of the adjustment assembly 21.”.)
As for claim 4, Borbe et al. teach that said sliding bushings 26,27 are provided on a front bearing position and a rear bearing position in-between said profiles (see Fig. 2).
As for claim 5, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said profiles are configured: as open profiles.
As for claim 6, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said adjusting device is designed as a concentric arrangement of: said outer profile, said inner profile, said spindle shaft with a threaded nut arranged in said inner profile, and the sliding bushings of Borbe et al. are capable of being arranged in-between said inner profile and said outer profile, and said spindle shaft with a threaded nut arranged in said inner profile.
As for claim 7, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said electromotive drive is arranged with its motor shaft essentially orthogonal with respect to said profiles and said spindle shaft (see Fig. 6).
As for claim 8, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said adjusting device comprises exactly one outer profile 20 and one inner profile 214.
As for claims 9-10, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said adjusting device is a first adjusting device and wherein the vehicle seat further comprising a second adjusting device in parallel with the first adjusting device (see Fig. 2), wherein:
said electromotive drive is received in or on a cross bar extending perpendicular to said profiles, and
said cross bar together with said electromotive drive and said parallel adjusting devices forms an adjusting system (see Figures 1-2 that show the electromotive drive 22 that is received in or on a cross bar extending perpendicular to said profiles); wherein the two parallel adjusting devices are driven by said common electromotive drive,
said cross bar being provided as a motor bridge between said adjusting devices, said electromotive drive driving, towards said two adjusting devices, one motor shaft each and/or a common motor shaft.
As for claims 14-16, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said adjusting device is located between:
- a longitudinal track system, and
- a seat cushion of said vehicle seat,
for adjusting a seat height and/or a seat inclination of said seat cushion in relation to said longitudinal track system; further comprising one pair of front adjusting devices and one pair of rear adjusting devices located between said longitudinal track system and said seat part,
wherein an inclination of said seat cushion can be adjusted by operating either said front adjusting devices or said rear adjusting devices, and
a seat height of said seat cushion in relation to said longitudinal track system can be adjusted by operating said rear and front adjusting devices 120,121 (see Fig. 1 and the specification at column 6, lines 34-43 where it reads “The vehicle seat 1 is connected to an adjustment assembly 21 of a (longitudinal) adjustment apparatus 2 via a vertical adjustment apparatus 12. Within the context of the vertical adjustment direction 12, coupling elements 120, 121 in the form of swing arms that are pivotably connected both to the seat part 10 and to the adjustment assembly 21, are pivotable relative to the adjustment assembly 21 for the purpose of vertical adjustment of the vehicle seat 1, such that the seat part 10 can be raised or lowered for setting a comfortable sitting position for a vehicle occupant.”)
As for Claim 16, Kieser-Neumeyer et al. teach that said adjusting device is located between upper tracks 214 of a longitudinal track system and lower tracks 20 of said longitudinal track systems to be mounted on a floor inside said vehicle, for longitudinal adjustment of said vehicle seat.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kieser-Neumeyer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,515,565 B2) in view of Borbe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,571,666 B2) or Ferenc et al. (U.S. Patent No 11,034,264 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carroll et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0074283 A1).
Kieser-Neumeyer et al. in view of Borbe et al. or Ferenc et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that adjusting device is located between a seat cushion and a foot rest of said vehicle seat, for swivel adjustment of said foot rest.
PNG
media_image5.png
294
226
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Carroll et al. teach a similar vehicle seat that also includes a foot rest of said vehicle seat that includes swivel adjustment of said foot rest. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle seat, as taught by the combination of Kieser-Neumeyer et al. in view of Borbe et al. or Ferenc et al., to include a footrest, as taught by Carroll et al., since it would provide an additional level of comfort for a passenger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights