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 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 5-6 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.
Claims 5 & 6 require “a sleeve-like driver element” but provides no explanation of what “sleeve-like” means or implies. A “sleeve” can mean many different things depending on the context. As disclosed, the term “sleeve like” is undefined. How much like a sleeve must the element be? What kind of “sleeve” is this element like? Clarification is required. Claims 5 & 6 will be rejected with art below using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “sleeve like” term so as to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Duriez et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0077280).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Duriez teaches:
A vehicle system arrangement, comprising:
a first body (Fig. 2 Element 4. See paragraph 0067.) on which a scanning belt (Fig. 2 Element 5. See paragraph 0067.) with a plurality of scanning elements is fixedly arranged (Fig. 2 Element 10. See paragraph 0067.);
a second body (Fig. 2 Element 1. See paragraphs 0062 & 0067.), which is displaceable in a direction of movement relative to the first body (Fig. 2 Element (X) indicating direction. See paragraph 0067.), wherein a linear path sensor is arranged on the second body (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.), which interacts with the scanning belt (Fig. 2 Elements 9 & 10. See paragraph 0067.); and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 2 Element 8. See paragraphs 0074.) which is configured to determine a linear position of the first body relative to the second body as a function of a sensor signal of the linear path sensor (Fig. 2 Element 8. See paragraphs 0074.), wherein the linear path sensor is fixedly mounted on the second body in the direction of movement and is displaceably mounted on the second body transversely to the direction of movement (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the linear path sensor (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.) is connected to the second body (Fig. 2 Element 1. See paragraphs 0056-0057 & 0062.) via a plug-in connection device (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.), wherein a plug-in direction of the plug-in connection device is oriented transversely to the direction of movement (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.).
Regarding claim 3, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the plug-in connection device (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.) has a protrusion (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.) which is inserted into a corresponding opening (Fig. 5 & 6A Element 73. See paragraphs 0078-0079.), wherein the protrusion is mounted fixedly in the opening in the direction of movement and displaceably in a first transverse direction aligned transversely to the direction of movement (Fig. 5 & 6A Elements 81 & 73. See paragraphs 0078-0079.), in such a manner that the protrusion bears on both sides against a circumferential surface of the opening in the direction of movement and glides on the circumferential surface of the opening (Fig. 5 & 6A Elements 81 & 73. See paragraphs 0078-0079.).
Regarding claim 4, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the plug-in connection device (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.) has a protrusion (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.) which is inserted into a corresponding opening (Fig. 5 & 6A Element 73. See paragraphs 0078-0079.), wherein the protrusion (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.) is mounted in such a manner that it can be displaced in a second transverse direction aligned transversely to the direction of movement (Fig. 2 Element 81 wherein there is necessarily some gap, however small, between the sides which would allow the plug to wiggle side to side, however little. See paragraphs 0078-0079.), such that there is a gap in the second transverse direction between the protrusion and the circumferential surface of the opening (Fig. 2 Element 81 wherein there is necessarily some gap, however small, between the top and bottom which would allow the plug to wiggle up and down, however little. See paragraphs 0078-0079.).
Regarding claim 5, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches a sleeve-like driver element is provided on the second body (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.) or on the linear path sensor and is positively connected to the second body or the linear path sensor (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.), wherein the driver element has the opening or forms the protrusion (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.).
Regarding claim 6, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the sleeve-like driver element (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.) has a radial protrusion and a latching element (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.); and wherein the sleeve-like driver element is arranged in a receiving opening of the second body and is fixed in an insertion direction of the driver element via the radial protrusion and the latching element (See paragraph 0067 wherein a “latch is disclosed.).
Regarding claim 7, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the linear path sensor (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.) is guided on the scanning belt in the direction of movement (Fig. 2 Element (X) indicating direction. See paragraph 0067.).
Regarding claim 8, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the linear path sensor (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.) has two guide elements which engage behind the scanning belt (Fig. 6A-6B Element 71 wherein the frame of reference can be such that these elements are behind the protuberances. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.).
Regarding claim 11, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the linear path sensor (Fig. 2 Element 9. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.) has a housing with an upper part and a lower part (Fig. 6A-6B Element 9 wherein there are six sides, which can arbitrarily be labeled upper and lower.), wherein a circuit board is latched to the lower part and the upper part is latched to the circuit board (Fig. 2 Elements 8, 9 , 73, & 81 wherein alle elements are necessarily electrically connected. See paragraphs 0057-0061 & 0067.).
Regarding claim 12, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the upper part has a plug, wherein resilient electrical contact elements are arranged on the upper part for making contact with a respective mating contact of the circuit board (Fig. 2 Element 81. See paragraphs 0078-0079.).
Regarding claim 13, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the circuit board is positioned relative to the upper part via a plug-in connection (Any position of the cited circuit board is “relative” to any part of the plug in connection. It can be anywhere and meet the metes and bounds of this limitation. Therefore, the board of Duriez meets this limitation.).
Regarding claim 15, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez teaches the first body is a fixed vehicle seat guide (Fig. 1 & 2 Element 4. See paragraph 0067.) and the second body is a vehicle seat guide rail connected to the vehicle seat and displaceable with the vehicle seat (Fig. 1& 2 Element 1. See paragraphs 0062 & 0067.).
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.
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duriez et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0077280).
Regarding claim 9, Duriez teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez may not explicitly teach the guide elements have a slope guide surface which tapers towards one another and which rest against a respective slope mating guide surface of the scanning belt.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the guide elements have a slope guide surface which tapers towards one another and which rest against a respective slope mating guide surface of the scanning belt because this would allow for self-aligning and smooth operation of the interacting elements.
Regarding claim 10, Duriez teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez may not explicitly teach the scanning belt is chamfered on one end face.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the guide elements have the scanning belt chamfered on one end face because this would allow for self-aligning, self-guiding, and smooth operation of the interacting elements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duriez et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0077280) in view of Bujak et al (U.S. PGPub # 2010/0123302).
Regarding claim 14, Duriez teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Duriez does not explicitly teach the linear path sensor is an inductive sensor.
Bujak teaches the linear path sensor is an inductive sensor (See paragraphs 0006-0007, 0017-0020, 0022, 0027-0028, & claim 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Bujak to the teachings of Duriez such that the linear path sensor would be an inductive sensor because this is a type of sensor that is well-known, reliable, cheap and capable of performing the same task as the sensor of the present applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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 P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights