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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/24/2025 and 9/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner. See attached IDS forms.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yumai Mechanical Tech Wujiang Co Ltd - CN 216797049 (hereinafter “Yumai”).
Yumai discloses an adjusting device for a seat unit, configured to switch the seat unit between a sitting position, a stretching position, and a lying position, wherein the adjusting device comprises a backrest connecting assembly, an intermediate transmission assembly, and a footrest connecting assembly that are connected in sequence;
the backrest connecting assembly at least comprises a backrest connecting block (81);
the intermediate transmission assembly at least comprises a seat frame (1) and an adjusting mechanism (explained below) configured to adjust the seat frame;
the adjusting mechanism comprises a first connecting member (334; see Fig. 4), the first connecting member is configured with a first hinge hole, a second hinge hole, and a third hinge hole in sequence (as seen in Fig. 4), a distance between the first hinge hole and the third hinge hole is Al, a distance between the second hinge hole and the third hinge hole is A2,
the adjusting mechanism further comprises a fixed base plate (331) and a rotary driving plate (322) disposed opposite to each other, and two seventh connecting members (321 and 323; see Fig. 1) disposed between the seat frame and the rotary driving plate; the rotary driving plate is configured with a ninth hinge hole, a tenth hinge hole, and an eleventh hinge hole in sequence, wherein:
the eleventh hinge hole is disposed close to the footrest connecting assembly (2), the ninth hinge hole is disposed close to the backrest connecting assembly, and the two seventh connecting members are hinged to the tenth hinge hole and the eleventh hinge hole respectively; the first hinge hole is coaxial with the ninth hinge hole, a distance between the ninth hinge hole and the tenth hinge hole is Cl.
However, Yumai does not explicitly disclose: that the ratio of the distance between the second hinge hole and the third hinge hole (A2) to the distance between the first hinge hole and the third hinge hole (A1) is not greater than 0.5, that the ratio of the distance between the ninth and tenth hinge holes (C1) to the distance between the ninth and eleventh hinge holes (C2) is not greater than 0.35, or that the variation of the angle between a side edge of the backrest connecting block and the horizontal plane is not less than 25° when adjusted between the stretching and lying positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to optimize or adjust the distances between hinge holes and the angular variation through routine experimentation to achieve a compact, robust, and ergonomic seat adjustment mechanism, as the selection of such values constitutes a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). The prior art teaches that these hinge positions and angular variations may be adjusted to suit specific design requirements, and no criticality or unexpected result is shown for the claimed ratios or angle. The claimed ratios and angle ranges are thus considered to be the result of ordinary optimization of known seat adjustment mechanisms.
Regarding claim 2, Yumai further shows a second connecting member (338) hinged to the first connecting member. Claims 2 and 3 further recite connecting members with specific hinge arrangements, coaxial relationships, and dimensional/ratio limitations. While the reference teaches multi-link mechanisms with multiple connecting rods and hinge points, it does not explicitly disclose the exact enumeration, coaxiality, or the claimed ratios/distances. However, the optimization of hinge positions and distances for desired seat adjustment motion is considered a result-effective variable and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on routine engineering design choices (see MPEP 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results, these limitations would be considered obvious modifications.
Regarding claim 5, Yumai discloses that the footrest connecting assembly comprises a footrest connecting block (25) and the fixed base plate has a rear mounting hole which defines a reference plane. However, the dimensional limitations (H1 and H2) are not explicitly disclosed. As the structural arrangement is generally present, but the specific measurements (H1, H2) are result-effective variables and are considered obvious to optimize for ergonomic or design reasons.
Regarding claim 6, while Yumai discusses movement of the footrest, it does not discloses this specific measurement. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the ascending distance of the footrest block to not be greater than 300 mm during adjustment as this value is a result-effective variable and optimizing the travel distance requires only routine skill.
Similarly, regarding claim 7, while Yumai discusses movement of the backrest, it does not disclose this specific measurement. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a distance from the highest point of the backrest connecting block to a reference plane not greater than 400 mm in sitting position or 320 mm in a lying position as this value is a result-effective variable and optimizing the distance requires only routine skill.
Similarly, regarding claim 11, while Yumai discusses seat frame inclination, it does not disclose this specific measurement. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a variation of an angle as claimed to be not less than 5 degrees as this value is a result-effective variable and optimizing the angle requires only routine skill.
Regarding claims 12-17, while Yumai describes two-stage adjustment and driving mechanisms but does not explicitly state both stages are driven by the same source. The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that using a single linear drive source for multiple stages is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the adjusting device with a single drive source in order to simplify the design and reduce parts. Furthermore, regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to connect the drive as claimed as such connections are routine design choices.
Regarding claim 18, Yumai shows the first connecting member (334) having three hinge holes arranged as claimed (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Yumai shows the second connecting member (338) having three hinge holes arranged as claimed (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitation that "a height difference between a highest point of the footrest part and the backrest part is not greater than 400 mm when in the lying position" is a dimensional parameter that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the field of seat design that such height differences are routinely adjusted and optimized to achieve ergonomic comfort, aesthetic appeal, and compatibility with various seat unit configurations. The selection of a specific value, such as 400 mm or less, is a result-effective variable, and the prior art teaches adjustable seat mechanisms and footrest structures wherein such dimensions may be varied as a matter of routine design choice. Unless the applicant demonstrates that the claimed dimension yields an unexpected result or is critical to the operation of the seat unit, the limitation represents an obvious optimization of known seat structures (see MPEP 2144.05(II); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Therefore, the claimed dimensional limitation does not impart patentable weight and would have been obvious over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights