DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on October 22, 2024 have been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
This application claims foreign priority to Korean Patent No. KR10-202400033969 field on March 11, 2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on July 18, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 2 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 2: Claim 2 has been written as improper Markush groupings. Alternate expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of claims. One acceptable form of alternative expression, or Markush group, recites members being “selected from the group consisting of A, B, or C.” See Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r5 Pat. 1925). (See MPEP 2173.05 (h)). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnaud et al., French Patent No. 3035627 A1 (hereinafter Arnaud) (all citations are to the English translation dated 2026).
Claim 1: Arnaud discloses a swivel and sliding apparatus (Fig 7) comprising:
an interior element (front passenger seats 7) to be installed in an interior space of a vehicle (cockpit 3);
a swivel unit (bearing 22, rotating ring 23, screw 24) configured to rotate the interior element (7) (bearing 22 is fixed on the support plate 26 and allows the rotation of the module 20, pivoting the module 20 a quarter of a turn along arrow 22, see Fig 5, pg 3) ; and
a sliding unit (slides 21) provided with one side connected to the interior element (7) (as shown in Fig 7) and a remaining side connected to the swivel unit (flat support 20 is connected to rotating ring 23, as shown in Fig 7) to cause the interior element (7) to slide with respect to the swivel unit (sliding the module along arrow 23 as shown in Fig 6), wherein the interior element (7) and the sliding unit are rotated together through the swivel unit (flat support 20 having slides 21 is attached to rotating ring 23, pg 3).
Claim 2: Arnaud discloses wherein the interior element (front passenger seats 7) comprises at least one of a monitor configured to transmit media, a console configured to operate a device in the vehicle, a table, and a seat (front passenger seats 7, see Fig 1).
Claim 3: Arnaud discloses wherein the sliding unit (slides 21) comprises:
an upper panel (upper portion of slides 21 connected to cross member 33) coupled to the interior element (connected to the seat 7); and
a lower panel (lower portion of slides 21 connected to flat support 20) configured such that the upper panel (upper portion of slides 21) is slidably coupled to the lower panel (lower portion of slides 21) so as to allow sliding of the interior element (see Fig 7, pg 3, claim 3).
Claim 4: Arnaud discloses wherein:
the lower panel (flat support 20) is coupled to the swivel unit (bearing 22, rotating ring 23, screw 24); and
a length of the upper panel (upper portion of slides 21 connected to cross member 33) disposed on the lower panel is longer than a length of the lower pane (at 20) with respect to a direction in which the upper panel slides (slides 21 are longer than the flat support 20 in the direction in which the slides 21 slide).
Claim 14: Arnaud discloses wherein: the interior element is a seat (front passenger seats 7); and
the sliding unit (slides 21) is configured to move the seat (7) in a direction perpendicular to a forward direction of the seat (front edge of seat 7) (slides 21 are located in a direction perpendicular to the front edge of the seat 7, as seen in Fig 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaud
Claim 5: Arnaud discloses wherein:
first bent portions configured to extend upward and be bent outward are formed on the upper panel (upper portion of slides 21 show bent portions extending upwards and bent outwards best seen in Fig 7);
second bent portions configured to extend downward and be bent inward are formed on the lower panel (lower portion of slides 21 show bent portions extending downwards and bent inwards as best seen in Fig 7);
and the first bent portions (on upper portion of slides 21) and the second bent portions (on lower portions of slides 21) are configured to be engaged with each other so that the upper panel is slidably coupled to the lower panel (panel 20 slides forward alone arrow 21, upper and lower portions of slides are arranged to be connected as best seen in Fig 7).
Arnaud fails to disclose the first bent portions formed on the lower panel and the second bent portions formed on the upper panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first bent portion to be formed on the lower panel and the second bent portion to be formed on the upper panel as one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill could have easily exchanged the locations of first and second bent portions of the slides.
Claim 6: Arnaud discloses wherein: the first bent portions are provided in plural along opposite sides of the lower panel (upper and lower portions of slides are located on either side of flat support 20) and along a middle thereof; and
the second bent portions are provided in plural along opposite sides of the upper panel (upper and lower portions of slides are located on either side of flat support 20) and along a middle thereof.
Arnaud fails to disclose first bent portions provided along a middle thereof and second bent portions provided along a middle thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the plurality of first bent portions and second bent portions of Arnaud to further include first and second bent portions located along a middle of the lower and upper panel since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaud in view of Joo, Korean Patent No. KR101283388B1 (hereinafter Joo)(all citations are to the English translation dated 2026).
Claim 7: Arnaud fails to disclose wherein the sliding unit comprises a sliding latch configured to fix the interior element to the sliding unit or to release the interior element from the sliding unit.
Joo discloses a sliding unit comprises a sliding latch (rockers 21a, 21b) configured to fix the interior element (cushion side members 17a, 17b) to the sliding unit (lower rails 12a, 12b) or to release the interior element from the sliding unit (seat tracks are locked by rockers 21a, 21b and other end of rockers 21a, 21b is lifted as shown in Fig 3a, locking projection 24 is formed in the upper portion is unlocked from the lock groove formed in the lower rails 12a, 12b as shown in in Fig 3b and sheet is moved in the unlocked state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sliding unit of Arnaud with a sliding latch as disclosed by Joo, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a sliding latch to the interior element would have yielded the predictable results of selectively locking and unlocking the seat from the rails (Joo, abstract).
Claim 8: Arnaud, as modified by Joo, fails to disclose wherein: a first part of the sliding latch (Joo, rockers 21a, 21b) is rotatably coupled to one side of the sliding unit (12a, 12b); and
a second part of the sliding latch (Joo, lock protrusion 24) is inserted into fixing grooves (Joo, lock groove 24) formed on the sliding unit to fix the interior element (seat) to the sliding unit (Joo, other end of the lock groove 24 is formed to form the lock protrusion 24 in the lower rails 12a and 12b or is released from the fixing grooves to release the interior element from the sliding unit (Joo, seat tracks are locked by rockers 21a, 21b and other end of rockers 21a, 21b is lifted as shown in Fig 3a, locking projection 24 is formed in the upper portion is unlocked from the lock groove formed in the lower rails 12a, 12b as shown in in Fig 3b and sheet is moved in the unlocked state).
Claim 9: Arnaud, as modified by Joo, fails to disclose wherein the sliding unit (slides 21) comprises:
an upper panel (Arnaud, upper portion of slides 21 connected to cross member 33) coupled to the interior element (Arnaud, connected to the seat 7) and including fixing grooves (Joo, lock groove 24) formed therein; and
a lower panel (Arnaud, lower portion of slides 21 connected to flat support 20) configured such that the upper panel (Arnaud, upper portion of slides 21) is slidably coupled to the lower panel (Arnaud, lower portion of slides 21) so as to allow sliding of the interior element (Arnaud, see Fig 7, pg 3, claim 3),
wherein a first part of the sliding latch (Joo, rockers 21a, 21b) is rotatably coupled to one side of the sliding unit (12a, 12b); and
and the second part of the sliding latch (Joo, lock protrusion 24) is inserted into the fixing grooves formed in the upper panel to fix the interior element (seat) to the sliding unit (Joo, other end of the lock groove 24 is formed to form the lock protrusion 24 in the lower rails 12a and 12b) or is released from the fixing grooves to release the interior element from the sliding unit (Joo, seat tracks are locked by rockers 21a, 21b and other end of rockers 21a, 21b is lifted as shown in Fig 3a, locking projection 24 is formed in the upper portion is unlocked from the lock groove formed in the lower rails 12a, 12b as shown in in Fig 3b and sheet is moved in the unlocked stat).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaud in view of Ostervig et al., European Patent No. EP 1659021 B1 (hereinafter Ostervig) (all citations are to the English translation dated 2026).
Claim 10: Arnaud discloses wherein the swivel unit (pivoting mechanism 30) comprises:
a swivel rotator (rotating ring 23) configured to allow the interior element (7) to selectively assume a rotatable state (pin 34 slides from point A to point B to exit the groove alone the axis X in contact with guide track 28 thereby allowing the module 20 to pivot in accordance with the circular arc radius 29, see Fig 5, 7-8, pg 3).
Arnaud fails to disclose assuming a rotatable state based on application of external force; and a trigger configured to transmit external force to the swivel rotator.
Ostervig discloses a the swivel unit (turntable for a seat 100, Fig 1) comprises: a swivel rotator (turntable 100, 101) configured to allow the interior element (lockable turntable for auto chairs, par [0001]) to selectively assume a rotatable state based on application of external force (turntable 100, 101 can be locked and unlocked); and
a trigger (release lever 5) configured to transmit external force to the swivel rotator (integrated locking device, comprising wedge-shaped locking pawls, is locked/unlocked by turning the release lever, pg 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the swivel rotator of Arnaud with the swivel unit as disclosed by Ostervig as one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known swivel rotator for another swivel rotator and the results of the substitution would have been predictable thereby providing a swivel unit for rotating an interior element.
Claim 11: Arnaud, as modified by Ostervig, discloses wherein the swivel rotator (rotating ring 23) comprises:
a floor plate (support plate 26) configured to be coupled to a floor of the vehicle or a moving rail provided on the floor (support plate 26 fixed to the floor 10 of the vehicle, Fig 7, pg 3); and
a rotating plate screw fixing 24 with wide cylindrical head 24a) provided on the floor plate (26) and coupled to the sliding unit (21) to allow the interior element (7) to assume the rotatable state based on application of external force (Arnaud, as shown in Fig 7, pg 3, Ostervig, pg 2).
Claim 12: Arnaud, as modified by Ostervig, discloses wherein: the rotating plate comprises locking pins (Ostervig, locking pawls 2) configured to move along opposite directions based on the application of external force (Ostervig, catch pin 4, see Fig 1, on the locking pawls 2 moves in the curved grooves in the cam disc 3, see Fig. 1),
insertion recesses (Ostervig, locking points 52) formed on the floor plate (Ostervig, ring shaped member 73 of bottom disc 26) such that a first end of each of the locking pins (2) is insertable into a corresponding one of the insertion recesses (52) (Ostervig, as seen in Fig 1-2); and
when the first end of each of the locking pins (2) is separated from the corresponding one of the insertion recesses (52), the interior element (Arnaud seat 7) assumes the rotatable state (Ostervig, unengaged state as seen in Fig 1, pg 4-5) and, when the first end of each of the locking pins (2) is inserted into the corresponding one of the insertion recesses (52), the interior element (Arnaud seat 7) assumes a non-rotatable state (Ostervig, engaged state as seen in Fig 2, pg 4-5).
Claim 13: Arnaud, as modified by Ostervig, discloses wherein: the trigger (Ostervig, release lever 5) comprises a swivel lever (release lever) rotatably provided at one end of the interior element (Ostervig, locked/unlocked by turning the release lever, as seen in Fig 5) and connected to the swivel rotator through a wire (spring 6 is a wire); and
external force is applied to the swivel rotator by rotation of the swivel lever (Ostervig, circular turning pattern of a release lever to be converted to a radial motion pattern of the locking pawls by curved grooves of the cam disc, see Fig 1-3, pg 2).
Conclusion
Claims 1-14 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights