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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 10 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.
In claim 10, it is unclear if “a vehicle seat” in line 1 is the same as the “vehicle seat” of claim 1. Also in claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the seat part" in line 2.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vetere (WO-2020018986-A1).
Vetere discloses a power drive mechanism for an automotive seat configured to reposition the automotive seat between an upright position and a pitched forward position.
Claim 1 – Vetere teaches a functional unit for adjusting a seat back of a vehicle seat (figure 3), the functional unit comprising:
a functional support (element 104 in figure 5);
an electric pinion adjuster disposed on said functional support for moving the seat back (element 50 in figure 3);
a blocking mechanism for blocking a seat back movement, wherein said blocking mechanism has a spring-loaded pawl system (elements 102, 163, 190, and 230 in figure 6) and a fixed blocking element (element 100 in figure 5), wherein said spring-loaded pawl system is pivotably mounted on said functional support and has two blocking positions for blocking the seat back movement at opposing end sides of said fixed blocking element (Vetere’s disclosure is for two positions, an upright position and a pitched forward position);
a seat adapter unit (element 62 in figure 5) for securing to a seat substructure (element 66 in figure 3), wherein said functional support has an upright bearing journal (element 198 in figure 5), which forms a seat back rotational axis for the seat back movement together with said seat adapter unit;
a pivotably mounted tooth segment disposed on said upright bearing journal (element 74 in figure 5), and having a segment tooth system in engagement with said electric pinion adjuster (figure 3) and an extension (element 94 in figure 5);
said fixed blocking element has a cutout formed therein and functions as a freewheel for said pivotably mounted tooth segment with two end-side stops, wherein said extension engages in said cutout (element 96 in figure 5); and
a pivoting movement of said pivotably mounted tooth segment is blocked when said extension is in contact with one of said end-side stops (element 96 has end-side stops that blocks further movement).
Claim 2 – Vetere teaches in the blocking positions of said spring-loaded pawl system, said extension is in contact with a respective one of said end-side stops situated opposite thereto (figure 14).
Claim 3 – Vetere teaches during a driving movement of said electric pinion adjuster, said extension moves within said cutout from one of said end-side stops to another one of said ends-side stops, and during the driving movement, said spring-loaded pawl system is moved out of a blocking position of said two blocking positions into an intermediate position that releases the seat back movement (figures 11 and 14).
Claim 4 – Vetere teaches said pivotably mounted tooth segment has a link part for guiding said spring-loaded pawl system between the blocking positions (element 150 in figure 6).
Claim 5 – Vetere teaches said fixed blocking element is disposed on said seat adapter unit (figure 20).
Claim 6 – Vetere teaches said spring-loaded pawl system has two separate pawls (elements 102 and 163 in figure 6) and a coupling driver (element 210 in figure 6), wherein said two separate pawls are each preloaded by means of a spring element (elements 190 and 230 in figure 6).
Claim 7 – Vetere teaches a Bowden cable (element 228 in figure 6), said coupling driver is coupled to said Bowden cable (via element 204 in figure 6).
Claim 8 – Vetere teaches a seat back adapter (element 52 in figure 4) for securing the seat back on said functional support (figure 4).
Claim 10 – Vetere teaches a vehicle seat (element 10 in figure 1), comprising:
the seat part (element 14 in figure 1) including the seat substructure (element 66 in figure 3);
the seat back (element 12 in figure 1) swivelably articulated on said seat part (figures 11 and 14); and
said functional unit according to claim 1 (figure 3).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetere (WO-2020018986-A1) in view of Jaradi (US-10232740-B1).
Jaradi discloses a method of correcting a seatback recline angle.
Claim 9 – Vetere does not teach an electronic unit as claimed. Jaradi teaches an electronic unit (“using a controller” in regards to measuring the recline angle, as explained in column 2, lines 23-26) having a state detector (“measuring of the recline angle includes using a position sensor” as explained in column 2, lines 17-18), said electronic unit disposed on said functional support, said electronic unit monitoring a blocking state of said blocking mechanism by means of said state detector.
It would have been obvious for Vetere to use an electronic unit and state detector, such as those taught by Jaradi, and to place it on the functional support close to where the sensing is necessary, in order for the motor to know when to stop, ensuring the motor does not burn out from continuous use.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11, applicant argues that Vetere does not teach “a pivotably mounted tooth segment having an extension” and that claim 1 “requires the extension to be part of the rotating tooth segment”. Claim 1 states “a pivotably mounted tooth segment disposed on said upright bearing journal, and having a segment tooth system in engagement with said electric pinion adjuster and an extension”. Claim 1 does not require the extension to be part of a rotating tooth segment.
On pages 11-13, applicant argues that Vetere does not teach “a fixed blocking element” as claimed. Specifically, applicant argues element 100 of Vetere “does not perform the claimed blocking function required of Applicants’ claimed fixed blocking element.” Applicant then states further elements of Vetere also do not teach the fixed blocking element. Claim 1 requires a “fixed blocking element” with “opposing end sides” at which a “spring-loaded pawl system can block the seat back movement”. Element 100 of Vetere teaches a “fixed blocking element” with “opposing end sides” at which a “spring-loaded pawl system can block the seat back movement”.
On pages 13-14, applicant argues that Vetere’s fixed blocking element does not teach the “cutout functions as a freewheel” as claimed. A freewheel is defined, in paragraph [0019] of the applicants’ specification, as an “idle travel sector”. Vetere’s cutout, element 96, is idle and acts as a “travel sector” for other parts.
Applicant argues Jaradi does not teach any of the applicants’ three previous arguments either. Jaradi merely teaches the electronic unit claimed in claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 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, DAVID 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights