July 6, 2026
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "36" and "43" have both been used to designate the “detents”. In Fig. 3, the “detents” are labeled with reference number “43” but in Fig. 4, the “detents” are correctly labeled with reference number “36”. Reference number “43” is used to designate the “hole 43” of the “recline adjuster 40”. However, in Figures 2-3 and 5, where the “recline adjuster 40” is shown, nothing on the “recline adjuster 40” is labeled with reference number “43”, and more specifically, no “hole” on the “recline adjuster 40” is labeled with reference number “43”. 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.
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 “energy absorber” in Claim 2 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As explained above in the objection to the drawings, Applicant does not properly show the “hole 43” on the “recline adjuster 40”. Because the “hole 43” is not shown (or at least has not been correctly labeled, it is not clear nor is it shown how the hole is arranged to align with the one or more detents. Applicant also fails to show the “energy absorber” defined in Claim 2. Applicant fails to show where the “energy absorber” is located within each of the one or more seat legs or how it is interconnected to each of the one or more seat legs to absorb a sudden vertical force in the event of a crash.
.
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 1-13 and 16-17 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.
In clam 1, line 2, “one or more leg” is unclear and confusing language. It appears the language should read as - - one or more legs - -. On lines 5-6. Applicant defines that the “recline arm having a first end pivotally mounted to each of the one or more seat legs and arranged to be fixedly mounted to a first mounting point of the seat body…..”. But on lines 13-14, Applicant defines that “the recline arm is free to pivot about the first mounting point…..”. How can the “recline arm” be both “fixedly mounted to a first mounting point” and “free to pivot about the first mounting point”? The word “fixedly” is defined as “in a fixed manner”. The word “fixed” is defined as “a : securely placed or fastened : stationary”. The same language exists in Claim 16 as well.
The aforementioned problems render the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,932 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter and structures are defined in Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,420,932 B2..
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, and 16-17 so far as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furtado et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,554 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 16, Furtado et al. teach a seat and a seat recline system comprising: one or more seat legs 30 to which a seat body can be mounted, in use; and, wherein each of the one or more seat legs 30 comprises:
a recline arm 19 having a first end pivotally mounted to each of the one or more seat legs and arranged to be fixedly mounted to a first mounting point 18 of the seat body, in use, and a second end arranged to be fixedly mounted to a second mounting point 28 of the seat body, in use, the recline arm further comprising one or more detents 62,63 formed on an inner side of the recline arm intermediate the first end and the second end;
a recline adjuster 16,21 located between the recline arm and each of the one or more seat legs, the recline adjuster fixedly attached to each of the one or more seat legs, and wherein the recline arm is free to pivot about the first mounting point at pivot axis 18 relative to the recline adjuster adjustor, wherein the recline adjuster has a hole therethrough arranged to align with the one or more detents in the recline arm at predetermined pivot positions of the recline arm relative to the recline adjuster; and
a locking system comprising a locking pin 64 and a lever 66 arranged to move the locking pin 64 relative to the hole in the recline adjuster, between a locking position in which the locking pin extends through the hole to engage in a detent 62,63 of the one or more detents 62,63 when the detent aligns with the hole, and a release position in which the locking pin does not extend through the hole.
As for Claim 5, Furtado et al. teach that the first mounting point and the second mounting point are defined by respective holes on the recline arm.
As for Claim 6, Furtado et al. further comprises fasteners (“pivot pin 26” and “pivot shaft “ at pivot axis 28”)through the respective holes.
As for Claim 7, Furtado et al. teach that the one or more detents 36 comprises a plurality of detents.
As for Claim 9, Furtado et al. teach that the lever 66 is biased to the locking position (see column 3, lines 35-50 where it reads “A biasing member 65 of any suitable type, such as a helical spring, is energized between the seat cushion 14 and the pin 64 for biasing the pin 64 in the locked position. A lever 66 is pivotally mounted to the seat cushion 14 by a pivot pin 67. A cable 68, preferably a Bowden-type cable, interconnects the lever 66 and the pin 64 so that the pin 64 moves between the unlocked and locked positions in response to corresponding pivotal movement of the lever 66. Thus, an occupant may adjust the angular position of the head restraint 40 about the second pivot axis 28 by actuating the lever 66 to retract the pin 64 axially from one of the gaps 63. Once the head restraint support frame 20 is adjusted to one of the plurality of recline support position, the occupant releases the lever 66 to allow the pin 64 to return to the locked position under the force applied by the biasing member 65.”).
As for Claim 10, it is inherent that Furtado et al. further comprises a stop to limit a pivot range of the recline arm.
As for Claim 13, Furtado et al. further comprises a cable 68 connecting the lever 66 of one leg with the lever of the other leg.
As for Claim 17, Furtado et al. teach that the seat comprises an aircraft seat.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furtado et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,554 B2) in view of in view of Andersson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,786,543 B2)
Furtado et al. teach the structure substantially a claimed but does not teach an energy absorber located within each of the one or more seat legs.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
252
224
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Andersson et al. teach a similar seat recline system that includes an energy absorber 22, 23 (“recliner deflection plate 22”, the “connecting arm 24”, the “pivot link 28”, “crash latch 25, plurality of “fingers 25a”, and the “release plate 26”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat recline system, as taught by Furtado et al., to include an energy absorber, as taught by Andersson et al., since the energy absorber could be actuated at loads above the threshold level to support the seat back 12 relative to the seat bottom 14 which may be a result of minor impact forces due to collisions at no or low speed, or those forces due to hard braking events.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furtado et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,554 B2) in view of in view of Nakaya et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,661,760 B2)
Furtado et al. teach the structure substantially a claimed but does not teach that the recline arm comprises markers adjacent each of the plurality of detents indicative of a recline position or angle. However, Nakaya et al. teaches the concept of providing markings on a seatback that indicates a position of the seat back to be old (see the specification at column 1, line 60 where it reads “For tackling this problem, a mark that indicates a position of the seat back…..”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat recline system, as taught by Furtado et al., to include markers adjacent each of the plurality of detents, as taught by Nakaya et al., since the markers would allow the user confirm and select the desired position of the seat back by looking at the mark.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights