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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bearing surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Line et al. (9,365,142).
Regarding claim 1, Line et al. disclose a vehicle seat 10 having at least one seat part and a leg support movably arranged on the seat part, which is adjustable between an extended lengthening position and a retracted normal position, characterized in that the leg support comprises at least: a support form part 202, 204 movably arranged relative to the seat part, a form part covering 251 arranged on the support form part and a tensioning device 260, wherein the tensioning device is configured to keep the form part covering under tension on the support form part in each of two opposing directions of movement during a movement of the support form part relative to the seat part (see figures 9-13 where it shows the extended and retracted positions).
Regarding claim 2, Line et al. disclose by moving the support form part 202, 204 relative to the seat part, the size of the bearing surface of the form part covering for a user sitting on the seat can be adjusted (see figures 9-13).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Line et al. in view of Line et al. (11,370,341).
Regarding claims 3, Line et al. (11,370,341) disclose the tensioning device comprises at least one tensioning element 44 arranged on the support form part, which has a fastening point 42 fixed to a seat part at a first end and a fastening point 52 fixed to a covering at an opposite second end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Line et al (11,370,341) and fasten both ends of the tensioning element in two ends of the seat part in the invention of Line et al. because it is simple and cost effective.
Regarding claim 4, Line et al. disclose the tensioning element 260 is a strap or a belt.
Regarding claim 5, Line et al. disclose the tensioning element 260 is movably guided along a form part contour of the support form part 202, 204, wherein the tensioning element 260 is movable along with the movement of the support form part relative to the seat part in such a manner that the form part covering 251 is held, or remains, at a constant tension.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 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.
Regarding claim 6, Line et al. fail to disclose at least one guiding element is provided on the support form part, in which the tensioning element is at least partially guided.
Regarding claim 7, Line et al. disclose the tensioning element is arranged on the support form part in such a manner that it is deflected on the support form part at least once in an S-shaped manner.
Regarding claim 9, Line et al. disclose the tensioning element is arranged on the support form part in such a manner that it is deflected on the support form part multiple times in an S-shaped manner.
Regarding claim 9, Line et al. disclose the support form part has at least two deflection points, at which the tensioning element is deflectable or deflected.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights