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 “centre axis (M),” “height extension of the roller” and “a connection section” 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both centerline near “SP” in multiple Figures 5-8 and intermediate subsections in Figure 8. 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to be written in claim format and need to be written in single sentence made of few short sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5-9 and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 3, the limitation “the roller ,which comprises” needs to be amended to - - the roller, which comprises - -.
In claim 12, line 1, the limitation “The vehicle seat” needs to be amended to - - [[The]] A vehicle seat - - to prevent any potential antecedent basis issues.
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 1-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a roller,” and the claim also recites “in particular for a vehicle seat base” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the height extension of the roller" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the height extension of the roller" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “essentially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine how to differentiate between a height extension of the second subelement which corresponds to the height extension of the roller and the one that essentially corresponds to the same.
The term “essentially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between two parallel surfaces and two essentially parallel surfaces.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between a hollow-cylindrical shape and a substantially hollow-cylindrical shape.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “essentially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between two subsections having the same configuration versus having essentially the same configuration.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same configuration" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 9 (two occurrences) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between a same wall thickness and substantially same wall thickness of the claim terms.
The term “essentially” in claim 9 (two occurrences) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how an ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between a same wall thickness and essentially same wall thickness of the claim terms.
Claim 9, recites the limitation of “at least one connecting subsection” in lines 6 and 8. In addition, claim 8 which claim 9 directly depends from recites the limitation of “a connecting subsection” in line 6. Furthermore, claim 6 which claim 8 is directly depends from also recites the limitation of “the connecting subsection” in line 3. Therefore, it is very confusing and unclear which connecting subsection is claim 9 referring back to.
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) 1, 3-4, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 20200262318A1).
As applied to claims 1, 11 and 12, Maeda teaches a roller assembly 210 including a roller holder 211 and rollers 212, bearings 214, in particular for a vehicle seat-base attached to a vehicle seat (seat moving structure 200 with a seat back 8, a seat cushion 20, rollers assemblies 210, seat rails 230, Figs. 7, 9, 10), the roller comprising a first subelement, which comprises a rolling surface (212), and a second subelement (214), which forms a mount for a bearing element (pin 213, Fig. 10), wherein the second subelement has a first section which is at least partially enclosed by the first subelement in such a way that there is a positive locking between the first subelement and the second subelement (214 is enclosed by 212 and positively locked by being press-fitted in the through hole 212a, Fig. 10).
As applied to claim 3, Maeda teaches the invention cited including wherein the roller comprises a center axis (M, horizontal direction in Fig. 10 along Right-Left arrows) which extends along a height axis (H, horizontal direction in Fig. 10 along Right-Left arrows), wherein the roller has a radial sectional axis (S, vertical direction in Fig. 10 along Upper-Lower arrows) which extends along a radial axis (R, vertical direction in Fig. 10 along Upper-Lower arrows) of the roller, wherein an intersection (SP) of the radial sectional axis (S) and the center axis (M) lies at half the height extension of the roller (, wherein the first section of the second subelement is symmetrical with respect to the radial sectional axis (S, Fig. 10 showing the symmetrical shapes to the left and right of vertical axis S at the middle of roller).
As applied to claim 4, Maeda teaches the invention cited including wherein the second subelement has a second section which is of hollow-cylindrical design (bearing 214 has hollow cylindrical tube) and forms the mount for the bearing element (213), wherein the second section of the second subelement has a height extension which essentially corresponds to the height extension of the roller (the height of 214 in horizontal direction is essentially corresponds to the height extension of the roller in horizontal direction, see Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haas et al. (US 4,848,938, hereinafter “Haas”).
As applied to claim 1, Haas teaches a roller, comprising a first subelement, which comprises a rolling surface (outside surface of 5), and a second subelement (combination of 3 and 4), which forms a mount for a bearing element (opening 17 of element 3 receives a bearing element), wherein the second subelement has a first section (outer ring 4) which is at least partially enclosed by the first subelement in such a way that there is a positive locking between the first subelement and the second subelement (portion of outer ring 4 is enclosed by portion 12 of 5, col. 3, lines 47-54).
The limitation “in particular for a vehicle seat-base” is considered to be an intended use limitation. Although the recitation has been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Haas meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitation above.
PNG
media_image1.png
635
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 2, Haas teaches the invention cited including the first subelement (5) made of soft plastic material injection molded around a harder second subelement (4, see claim 2).
As applied to claim 3, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the roller comprises a center axis (M) which extends along a height axis (H), wherein the roller has a radial sectional axis (S) which extends along a radial axis (R) of the roller, wherein an intersection (SP) of the radial sectional axis (S) and the center axis (M) lies at half the height extension of the roller, wherein the first section of the second subelement is symmetrical with respect to the radial sectional axis (S, see Annotated Figure above showing the symmetrical shapes to the left and right of axis S).
As applied to claim 4, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the second subelement has a second section which is of hollow-cylindrical design (3 is cylindrical design) and forms the mount for the bearing element, wherein the second section of the second subelement has a height extension which essentially corresponds to the height extension of the roller (the height of 3 in axis H direction is essentially corresponds to the height extension of the roller, see Annotated Figure above).
As applied to claim 5, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the first section of the second subelement (4) has an outer subsection extending along a circumferential direction (U) of the roller (narrower outer subsection along a direction into the paper circumferentially, see Annotated Figure above), which comprises an upper surface that extends essentially parallel to the rolling surface of the first subelement and is arranged along the radial axis (R) of the roller closer to the center axis (M) of the roller than the rolling surface, wherein the outer subsection has a height along the height axis (H) of the roller which is smaller than the height of the roller, wherein the first subelement at least partially encloses the outer subsection (see Annotated Figure above).
As applied to claim 6, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the outer subsection is connected to the second section (3) by means of a connecting subsection of the first section (combination of bearing ball which is not labeled and inner ring 2, see Annotated Figure above), wherein the connecting subsection extends along the radial axis (R) of the roller (Annotated Figure above).
As applied to claim 7, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein at least one intermediate subsection (ball bearing) is arranged along the radial axis (R) of the roller between the outer subsection (narrower portion of 4, see Annotated Figure above) and the second section (3), wherein the at least one intermediate subsection has essentially the same configuration as the outer subsection (ball bearing and narrower portion of 4 are configured to make a bearing), wherein the outer subsection is connected to the at least one intermediate subsection by means of a connecting subsection, wherein the at least one intermediate subsection (bearing ball) is connected to the second section (3) by means of a connecting section (inner ring 2, see Annotated Figure above).
As applied to claim 8, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the first subelement has a rolling subsection extending along the circumferential direction (U) of the roller and comprising the rolling surface (outermost surface of 5), wherein the rolling subsection is arranged at least partially on the upper surface of the first subsection, wherein the first subelement has at least one pair of engagement sections opposite each other along the height axis (H), which are separated from each other by a connecting subsection (the two opposite subsections of 5 separated by the connection section shown in Annotated Figure above).
As applied to claim 9, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein at least the rolling subsection, the engagement sections and the outer subsection have substantially the same wall thickness, wherein at least the rolling subsection, the engagement sections, the outer subsection and the at least one intermediate subsection have substantially the same wall thickness, wherein at least the rolling subsection the engagement sections, the outer subsection and the at least one connecting subsection have essentially the same wall thickness, wherein at least the rolling subsection, the engagement sections, the outer subsection, the at least one intermediate subsection and the at least one connecting subsection have essentially the same wall thickness (Annotated Figure above shows that all the elements 2-6 have portions with substantially and essentially same wall thickness).
As applied to claim 10, Haas teaches the invention cited including wherein the second section of the second subelement has two opposite end regions along the height axis (H), wherein each of the end regions is formed in a step-like manner (recesses 11, Annotated Figure above), wherein the first subelement (portions of 5) rests against the step-like end regions (see Annotated Figure above).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 20200262318A1).
As applied to claim 2, Maeda teaches the invention cited including the first subelement (212) is made of a resin and the subelement (214) is made of oil-less type bearing (paragraph [0121]) which is known to usually be made of metal which is harder than a resin. However, Maeda does not explicitly teach the second material is metal to be harder than the resin material of the first subelemenht. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that making an oil-less bearing from a metal such as bronze, copper or steel material which is harder than the resin is well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a metal material for the second subelement material of Maeda considering the well-known physical properties of a metal bearing which would withstand the high stress environment of repeatable movement of the under-load seat of a vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lancaster (US 5,451,198) teaches a roller with replaceable sleeve made of a plurality of different elements (Figs. 2 and 5).
Hill (US 3,815,959) teaches an industrial roller including an elastomeric tire and a low friction bearing support for the tire constructed and arranged so that the assembly allows the natural movement of the tire material, thus preventing generation of high heat and therefore stands up under long periods of usage and typical industrial loadings. Critical features include a relief zone between the tire and bearing support and a certain interference fit between the elastomeric tire and bearing support which factors to prevent heat build-up with resulting destruction of the assembly (abstract, Figs. 1-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 09/15/2026
Prosecution Insights