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
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See lines 23-24 on Page 5 of the Specification, which states that Fig. 1 “shows a schematic representation of a vehicle seat with a longitudinal adjustment mechanism according to the prior art.” See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 of the use of the implied phrase “is provided.” 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).
Examiner suggests the following changes:
A seat attachment structure for connecting a vehicle seat to a longitudinal adjustment mechanism and/or a vehicle floor
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title is overly verbose. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 12, lines 23-24, the phrase “the compensation elements 214 each end flush with a respective end face” is grammatically incorrect and/or incomplete.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, it appears that “is” should be changed to --are-- because the subject, “elements,” is plural. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, it appears that “is” should be changed to --are-- because the subject, “elements,” is plural. 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 2, 5, 6, and 10-13 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.
With regard to claim 2, the phrase “that is arrangeable, or is arranged, in the attachment opening” is confusing and unclear. The claim is ambiguous as to whether the adapter is actually arranged in the opening or not.
With regard to claims 5 and 10, it is unclear what is meant by “pre-installable or pre-installed.” This limitation is ambiguous as to what is required. Furthermore, the term “loosely” is a relative term and is indefinite. It is unclear how much movement must be allowed to be considered “loosely” installed.
With regard to claims 6 and 11, it is unclear what is meant by “a self-centering manner.” The specification does not describe sufficiently what specific structures enable such a “self-centering” feature.
With regard to claim 12, it is unclear if the term “at least one attachment carrier” relates to an entirely new element, or an element that has already been recited in claim 1. It is examiner’s understanding that the attachment carrier is actually part of the “first attachment side” that is recited in claim 1. The claim should be amended to reflect this, for example by stating --wherein the first attachment side comprises at least one attachment carrier-- or similar.
With regard to claim 13, it is unclear if the term “at least one fastening structure” relates to an entirely new element, or an element that has already been recited in claim 1. It is examiner’s understanding that the fastening structure is actually part of the “second attachment side” that is recited in claim 1. The claim should be amended to reflect this, for example by stating --wherein the second attachment side comprises at least one fastening structure-- or similar.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deptolla (DE 102007032974 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Deptolla teaches a seat attachment structure for connecting a vehicle seat (1, Fig. 4) to at least one of a longitudinal adjustment mechanism (6) and a vehicle floor structure, wherein the seat attachment structure has a first attachment side (2a) that is connectable to the vehicle seat (“seat frame side components 2a”) and a second attachment side (4a) that is connectable to at least one of the longitudinal adjustment mechanism and the vehicle floor structure (element 4 is called a “top rail” which engages with the “firmly attached” lower rails 6 that are mounted on the vehicle chassis 5), wherein the second attachment side has at least one attachment opening (4b) extending in the transverse direction with a tolerance compensation device (12) arranged therein at least for compensation of tolerances in at least one spatial direction (i.e. “Y” in Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 2, as best understood, the tolerance compensation device (12) is configured as a separate adapter that is arrangeable, or is arranged, in the attachment opening (see Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 12, as best understood, Deptolla discloses at least one attachment carrier (2a) that has two carrier sides (element 2a as shown in Figs. 2-3 of Deptolla has a left and a right side) for connection to the vehicle seat.
With regard to claim 13, as best understood, Deptolla discloses at least one fastening structure (i.e. the rail elements 4a) with two fastening elements arranged parallel to one another (there is one member 4a on each side of the seat for a total of two) for connection to at least one of the longitudinal adjustment mechanism (6) and to the vehicle floor structure.
With regard to claim 14, Deptolla discloses a vehicle seat (1) with a seat attachment structure as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deptolla in view of Jasiulek (WO 2019/202097 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Deptolla discloses that the tolerance compensation device comprises [an opening 4B] (17 and 20) lying opposite one another and arranged in the [opening 4B]
Deptolla fails to teach at least one bearing bush within the opening, where the two compensation elements are arranged in the bearing bush.
Jasiulek teaches an attachment device that has a tolerance compensation component. The tolerance compensation component comprises two compensation elements (1 and 2) that are arranged within a bearing bush (3) inside of an opening (within element 5).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Deptolla by providing the bearing bush of Jasiulek within the opening of Deptolla, in order to protect the compensation members from damage and wear during movement relative to the opening.
With regard to claim 5, Deptolla in view of Jasiulek teaches that the respective compensation element is pre-installable (note that the claim does not place any limitations on what the term “pre-installable” requires) or is pre-installed loosely within the bearing bush.
With regard to claim 6, as best understood, Deptolla in view of Jasiulek teaches that the respective compensation element is arranged in a self-centering manner in the bearing bush (Deptolla teaches the compensating members being centered within the opening—which has been provided with Jasiulek’s bearing bushing—thus the limitation of “self-centering” is considered to be met).
With regard to claim 7, Deptolla discloses that the tolerance compensation device comprises [an opening 4B] (17 and 20) arranged within the [opening 4B] (see Deptolla, Fig. 3).
Deptolla fails to teach at least one sleeve within the opening, where the two compensation elements are arranged in the sleeve.
Jasiulek teaches an attachment device that has a tolerance compensation component. The tolerance compensation component comprises two compensation elements (1 and 2) that are arranged within a sleeve (3) inside of an opening (within element 5).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Deptolla by providing the sleeve of Jasiulek within the opening of Deptolla, in order to protect the compensation members from damage and wear during movement relative to the opening.
With regard to claim 9, Deptolla teaches that the respective compensation element is configured as a sliding element (“When screwing in the expanding mandrel 12b on the bolt 14 pushes its conical area 20 against the radially inner surfaces of the spring tongues 17 so that they are widened outwardly to form the desired clamping force in the hole 4b of the mounting bracket 4a”).
With regard to claim 10, as best understood, Deptolla in view of Jasiulek teaches that the respective compensation element is pre-installable (note that the claim does not place any limitations on what the term “pre-installable” requires) or is pre-installed loosely within the sleeve.
With regard to claim 11, as best understood, Deptolla in view of Jasiulek teaches that the respective compensation element is arranged in a self-centering manner in the sleeve (Deptolla teaches the compensating members being centered within the opening—which has been provided with Jasiulek’s bearing bushing—thus the limitation of “self-centering” is considered to be met).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 4 and 8 both state that the compensation elements are “each flush with a respective end face of the bearing bush [or “sleeve” in claim 8]” in “an initial state.” Deptolla’s compensation elements are entirely contained within Jasiulek’s bearing bush / sleeve and thus can never be “flush with a respective end face” of the bearing bush / sleeve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of tolerance compensation elements or attachment devices similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights