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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Load-bearing component 47 (p.12, line 12); and
Stopper 45 (p.16, line 7).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, characterised in that the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part, which are connected to each other by at least one connecting means”. This appears to be three recitations of the same limitations, which is redundant. This should instead just recite, e.g., “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, .” 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 should recite “a seat part and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto, wherein the upper part has an upper part frame for supporting the seat part or the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body” (correcting the typos; distinguishing the two frames). Claims 2-12 are objected to by dependency.
Independent claim 1 should also recite “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, ” (correcting the typo by removing the redundant limitations).
Claim 3 should recite “the main struts are U-shaped or double-T-shaped in a section perpendicular to their main axis of extension, wherein at least two openings in each of the two main struts lie opposite one another in their end regions” (removing the redundant language). The dependent claims are objected to by dependency.
Claim 4 should recite “wherein the passage extends parallel to the height direction of the seat and the at least one screw connection is arranged within the passage, which connects the two of the frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner” (correcting the typo; matching the prior language “two of the frame parts” also in claim 4). The dependent claims are objected to by dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding “at least one screw connection,” the Office observes that Applicant has disclosed “According to a particularly preferred embodiment, the connecting means comprises at least one screw connection, wherein the frame has at least one passage opening which passes through two of the frame parts, wherein the passage runs parallel to the height direction Z of the seat and the at least one screw connection is arranged within the passage which connects the two frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner” (p.6, lines 11-15) such as wherein “According to a preferred embodiment, the at least one connecting means comprises a first screw, a second screw and a nut” (p.10, lines 7-8).
Accordingly, “at least one connecting means” in independent claim 1 is being interpreted to cover “at least one screw connection” as described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “at least one sliding element,” the Office observes that Applicant has disclosed “Preferably, the upper web and/or the lower web have a running surface for at least one sliding element. The at least one sliding element can then move along a main extension axis of the web. Alternatively, it is also conceivable that the centre web has a running surface for at least one sliding element. The at least one sliding element is preferably a roller. A slider or a carriage or a combination of these would also be conceivable” (p.5, lines 24-29) and similarly in claim 3.
Accordingly, “at least one sliding element” is being interpreted to cover “a roller,” “a slider,” “a carriage,” or “a combination of these” and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “a seat part and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto, wherein the upper part has a(n upper part) frame for supporting the seat part or the lower part has a (lower part) frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body, wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means.”
Regarding 112(b) Indefiniteness, “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means” refers to one particular frame (“the frame”), but there are two frames (the upper part frame and the lower part frame). Accordingly, it is unclear which of these frames this limitation refers to. For example, it is unclear if “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means” is referring to i) just the upper part frame; ii) just the lower part frame; or iii) both the upper part frame and the lower part frame.
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite. Claims 2-12 are rejected by dependency, also failing to clarify the claim scope.
The Office observes that, in the Specification, Applicant discloses “Since it would be very costly to form a frame in one piece, the frame according to the invention comprises a first and a second frame part. However, since the frame must fulfil high requirements in terms of strength and rigidity due to its use as a load-bearing part in a vehicle seat, in particular of a commercial vehicle, it is necessary to connect the first and second frame parts to one another in accordance with the requirements. For this purpose, at least one connecting means is provided according to the invention” (p.3, lines 26-31) and thus provides
“Figure 4 shows the upper frame 16. The upper frame 16 has two main struts 20 running parallel to each other in the longitudinal direction X. Two cross struts 21 extending in the width direction Y are arranged perpendicularly thereto. The main struts 20 are connected to the cross struts 21 at both end regions 22 of their main extension axis. The connection is made by a total of four connecting means 23” (p.13, lines 14-18) and e.g. “Figures 5a and 5b show a sectional view of a connecting element of the upper frame 16
along a Y-Z sectional plane” (p.13, lines 26-27) and “An additional component 41 in the form of a
sliding rail 8 rests on the collar 35” (p.13, lines 27-28). There is no description of a connecting element that attaches an additional component for the lower frame. Accordingly, it appears that “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means” is referring to i) just the upper part frame, because only the upper frame is described as having the connecting means to connect the first frame part, the second frame part, and the additional component (such as a sliding rail 8), as in claim 1.
Regarding 112(a) Written Description, if instead “wherein the frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means” is referring to ii) just the lower part frame or iii) both the upper part frame and the lower part frame, it appears this would instead be deficient for an inadequate Written Description, because only the upper frame is disclosed as having the connecting means to connect the first frame part, the second frame part, and the additional component (such as a sliding rail 8). For example, there is no description of how, exactly, the lower frame would be arranged to have a connecting means to connect the first frame part, the second frame part, and the additional component, and it is unclear how such an arrangement would be particularly designed, especially because the upper frame and the lower frame cannot be identical.
For examination purposes, claims will be read as though independent claim 1 recites:
“1. (Currently Amended) A vehicle seat, comprising:
a seat part and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto,
wherein the upper part has an upper part frame for supporting the seat part or the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body,
wherein the upper part frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, ”
“2. (Currently Amended) The vehicle seat according to claim 1, wherein the upper part frame consists of at least four frame parts which are arranged rectangularly, the upper part frame being arranged in its main plane of extension perpendicular to a height direction of the seat.”
“3. (Currently Amended) The vehicle seat according to claim 2, wherein the upper part frame has two main struts arranged parallel to one another, each with a central web, an upper web and a lower web, wherein the central web is arranged between the upper web and the lower web and the main struts are U-shaped or double-T-shaped in a section perpendicular to their main axis of extension, wherein at least two openings in each of the two main strutsupper part frame has at least two cross struts which connect the two main struts to one another in each case at the end regions of their main axis of extension, wherein the main struts are designed to guide at least one sliding element, such as a roller, a slider or a carriage.”
“4. (Currently Amended) The vehicle seat according to claim 3, wherein the connecting means comprises at least one screw connection, wherein the upper part frame has at least one passage which passes through two of the frame parts, wherein the passage extends parallel to the height direction of the seat and the at least one screw connection is arranged within the passage, which connects the two of the frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner.”
Claims 2-12 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the upper part has a[n upper part] frame for supporting the seat part or the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body.” However, claims 2-12 each refer to limitations provided only for the upper part frame as above with respect to 112(a) (e.g., the upper frame; the at least four frame parts; the connecting means; the passage; the bushing; the additional component; the spacer, etc.).
Accordingly, it is unclear if i) claims 2-12 further inherently or implicitly require, e.g., “wherein the upper part has the upper part frame for supporting the seat part,” or if instead ii) claims 2-12 are to be treated as reciting entirely optional limitations in the case that claim 1 is directed to the “wherein … the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body” embodiment only.
Accordingly, the claim scopes are rendered Indefinite.
For examination purposes, claims 2-12 will be treated as though ii) claims 2-12 recite entirely optional limitations in the case that claim 1 is directed to the “wherein … the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body” embodiment only.
However, based on the breadth of Prior Art that reads on the “wherein … the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body” embodiment, it appears Applicant should Amend claim 1 to recite “wherein the upper part has a[n upper part] frame for supporting the seat part [[or]] and the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body.”
Claims 3-9 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the main struts are designed to guide at least one sliding element, such as a roller, a slider or a carriage.”
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-9 are rejected by dependency.
For examination purposes, claims will be read as though claim 3 recites “wherein the upper part frame has two main struts arranged parallel to one another, each with a central web, an upper web and a lower web, wherein the central web is arranged between the upper web and the lower web and the main struts are U-shaped or double-T-shaped in a section perpendicular to their main axis of extension, wherein at least two openings in each of the two main strutsupper part frame has at least two cross struts which connect the two main struts to one another in each case at the end regions of their main axis of extension, wherein the main struts are designed to guide at least one sliding element” (removing the exemplary language; note that “at least one sliding element” is being interpreted under 112(f) to cover a roller, a slider, a carriage, or a combination of these and equivalents thereof).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Grammer (DE102016112108A1) (cited by Applicant and Extended European Search Report) (English machine translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Grammer discloses A vehicle seat (abstract “a mechanically sprung vehicle seat comprising an upper part as a first part with at least one first guide rail, a lower part as a second part with at least one second guide rail and at least one interposed scissors frame with two connected by an axis scissor arms” and Figs.), comprising:
a seat part (e.g., Fig. 1c and [0040] “Fig. 1c shows a side view of a mechanically sprung vehicle seat 1 with an indicated upholstery part”) and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto ([0040] “an upper part 2 as a first part 22 with a first guide rail 16, a lower part 3 as a second part 23 with a second guide rail 10 and at least one scissor frame 4 arranged between them with two scissor arms 5, 6 connected by means of an axis 24 or cross tube element” and e.g. [0021] “As a result, in particular the height of the scissor frame, and thus the distance between the upper part and the lower part of the vehicle seat, can be set to a different, user-defined initial value, since by changing the position of the spring device, the ends of the scissor arms connected to the spring device are also changed in or against the longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat”),
wherein the upper part has an upper part frame for supporting the seat part or the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body ([0040] “a lower part 3 as a second part 23 with a second guide rail 10” and Figs. 1a-1f, the lower part frame being made up of e.g. second guide rails 10, cross strut 50, and stiffening/reinforcing plates 51),
wherein the upper part frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means, wherein the at least one connecting means attaches an additional component to the frame
As above in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Applicant should note that the “or” merely requires “A vehicle seat, comprising:
a seat part and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto,
wherein … the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body,” in order to meet the claim, based on the claim language. Accordingly, the above citations of Grammer anticipate the claim as written.
Furthermore, as above in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, claims 2-12 will be treated as though ii) claims 2-12 recite entirely optional limitations in the case that claim 1 is directed to the “wherein … the lower part has a [lower part] frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body” embodiment only. Accordingly, claims 2-12 would similarly be anticipated by the above citations of Grammer.
Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant may further see the rejections below as though the claim recites “and” (i.e. “wherein the upper part has an upper part frame for supporting the seat part and the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer.
Applicant is reminded that, in the interest of compact prosecution, the following rejections are provided as though claim 1 recites “wherein the upper part has a frame for supporting the seat part [[or]] and the lower part has a frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body.”
Regarding the alternate independent claim 1, Grammer discloses A vehicle seat (abstract “a mechanically sprung vehicle seat comprising an upper part as a first part with at least one first guide rail, a lower part as a second part with at least one second guide rail and at least one interposed scissors frame with two connected by an axis scissor arms” and Figs.), comprising:
a seat part (e.g., Fig. 1c and [0040] “Fig. 1c shows a side view of a mechanically sprung vehicle seat 1 with an indicated upholstery part”) and a vehicle seat base with a lower part and an upper part which is adjustable in height relative thereto ([0040] “an upper part 2 as a first part 22 with a first guide rail 16, a lower part 3 as a second part 23 with a second guide rail 10 and at least one scissor frame 4 arranged between them with two scissor arms 5, 6 connected by means of an axis 24 or cross tube element” and e.g. [0021] “As a result, in particular the height of the scissor frame, and thus the distance between the upper part and the lower part of the vehicle seat, can be set to a different, user-defined initial value, since by changing the position of the spring device, the ends of the scissor arms connected to the spring device are also changed in or against the longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat”),
wherein the upper part has an upper part frame for supporting the seat part ([0040] “an upper part 2 as a first part 22 with a first guide rail 16” and Figs. 1a-1f, the upper part frame being made up of e.g. first guide rails 16, cross struts 50, and stiffening/reinforcing plates 51) and the lower part has a lower part frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body ([0040] “a lower part 3 as a second part 23 with a second guide rail 10” and Figs. 1a-1f, the lower part frame being made up of e.g. second guide rails 10, cross strut 50, and stiffening/reinforcing plates 51),
wherein the upper part frame comprises a first frame part and a second frame part which are connected to one another by at least one connecting means (e.g., Fig. 1e, the connecting means depicted in the corners next to the lines for 10 and 16; and also in Figs. 1a-3b), wherein the at least one connecting means attaches an additional component to the frame (e.g., [0047] “In the present case, cross struts 50 are arranged between the front ends of the guide rails 10 and 16 and cross struts 50 and/or stiffening plates 51 are arranged between the rear ends of the guide rails 10 and 16”; note that if the “additional component” is considered the “stiffening plates 51,” then having “cross struts 50 and… stiffening plates 51” arranged between the rear ends of guide rails 16 means the connecting means attach the stiffening plates 51 as an additional component to the upper part frame comprising the front and back cross struts 50 and the guide rails 16 on each side).
Grammer does not appear to actually specify what the connecting means depicted in the corners next to the lines for 10 and 16 in Fig. 1e actually are, but they appear to be structurally equivalent to “at least one screw connection” as depicted, and thus anticipate the feature as above. For example, Grammer does not name the parts, they appear to be a similar structure such as screws, nuts/bolts, rivets, etc.
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Grammer fails to disclose at least one connecting means equivalent to a screw wherein the at least one connecting means attaches an additional component to the frame, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to include using screws at those attachment points to attach any additional components to the vehicle seat structure, such as both the cross struts 50 and the stiffening plates 51, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to fasten the parts together using a standard means of doing so, especially because screws are relatively easy to readjust or uninstall for repairs and adjustments, compared to nuts/bolts and rivets.
Regarding claim 2, Grammer anticipates wherein the upper part frame consists of at least four frame parts which are arranged rectangularly, the upper part frame being arranged in its main plane of extension perpendicular to a height direction of the seat (e.g., Fig. 1a-1f, [0047] “In the present case, cross struts 50 are arranged between the front ends of the guide rails 10 and 16 and cross struts 50 and/or stiffening plates 51 are arranged between the rear ends of the guide rails 10 and 16”; this is at least four frame parts).
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.
Applicant is reminded that, in the interest of compact prosecution, the following rejections are provided as though claim 1 recites “wherein the upper part has a frame for supporting the seat part [[or]] and the lower part has a frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Grammer discloses, e.g., “Fig. 1c shows a side view of a mechanically sprung vehicle seat 1 with an indicated upholstery part, comprising an upper part 2 as a first part 22 with a first guide rail 16, a lower part 3 as a second part 23 with a second guide rail 10 and at least one scissor frame 4 arranged between them with two scissor arms 5, 6 connected by means of an axis 24 or cross tube element” ([0040]).
Although Grammer does not specify how the indicated upholstery part is attached to the upper part 2, presumably there must be some attachment or else the upholstery part above the upper part 2 would detach, and attaching it to the depicted connecting means (e.g., Fig. 1e, the connecting means depicted in the corners next to the lines for 10 and 16; and also in Figs. 1a-3b) would use the fewest parts to do so. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to include attaching the indicated upholstery part to the upper part 2 via the depicted connecting means, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to attach the indicated upholstery part with the fewest parts needed to do so (thereby including “wherein the additional component is at least one attachment for a seat shell arranged above the frame”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer as in claim 2, and further in view of Hand (2012/0110731).
Regarding claim 3, Grammer discloses (Figs. 1a-3b) wherein the upper part frame has two main struts arranged parallel to one another (first guide rails 16), each with a central web, an upper web and a lower web (e.g., Fig. 1e), wherein the central web is arranged between the upper web and the lower web and the main struts are C-shaped in a section perpendicular to their main axis of extension ([0008] “The spring device is also preferably mounted within the preferably C-shaped guide rail, so that both the sliding element and the n:vo buffer elements are mounted in a guided manner from at least three sides”), wherein at least two openings in each of the two main struts lie opposite one another in their end regions (as depicted in Figs. 1a-3b; esp. see Figs. 1e and 2a; these must have two openings on opposite ends) and the upper part frame has at least two cross struts which connect the two main struts to one another in each case at the end regions of their main axis of extension (cross struts 50), wherein the main struts are designed to guide at least one sliding element (e.g., [0046] “The front lower end 6 is designed in the present case by means of a roller 35 which can roll in the guide rail 10”)
Grammer further discloses “The spring device is also preferably mounted within the preferably C-shaped guide rail, so that both the sliding element and the two buffer elements are mounted in a guided manner from at least three sides. This ensures mechanical stability on the one hand and protection against dirt that could impair the sliding behavior of the sliding element on the other. For this purpose, the guide rails are preferably designed to be open in an inward direction” ([0008]).
However, Grammer fails to disclose wherein the guide rails are U-shaped or double-T-shaped.
Nevertheless, U-shaped and double-T-shaped guide rails are well-known alternatives for C-shaped guide rails. For example, Hand teaches “It is particularly beneficial when a cross section of said track and/or said guide rail substantially has/have a shape which is/are selected from the group of C-shaped, T-shaped, L-shaped and double T-shaped cross sections. In this way it can be ensured that, in particular whilst the lift is being moved along said track, the lift cannot become de-attached from the track” ([0013]) and “FIG. 4B shows a T-shaped cross-section of a guide rail 26 and/or track 12, 12'. FIG. 4C shows a U-shaped cross-section for a guide rail 26” ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to include, alternatively, a U-shaped or a double-T-shaped guide rail instead of the C-shaped guide rail, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate shape for a guide rail which can ensure “mechanical stability on the one hand and protection against dirt that could impair the sliding behavior of the sliding element on the other” (thereby including “wherein the upper part frame has two main struts arranged parallel to one another, each with a central web, an upper web and a lower web, wherein the central web is arranged between the upper web and the lower web and the main struts are U-shaped or double-T-shaped in a section perpendicular to their main axis of extension, wherein at least two openings in each of the two main struts
Second, this modification is obvious as no more than the simple substitution of a known element (known U-shaped or double-T-shaped guide rails) for another known element (known C-shaped guide rails) within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, in a manner that would have achieved predictable results (guiding a roller along a path). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer in claim 1 and in view of Hand as in claim 3, and further in view of Braun (2010/0244529).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, Grammer provides all elements (in view of Hand), except for wherein the connecting means simultaneously fastens the additional component and connects the frame parts in a non-positive manner.
Braun teaches in the Background that “In typical vehicle seats, in which seat and back parts each have a metal frame, both frames carrying a cushion covered with a material or leather cover, a fitting for adjusting the angle between seat and back parts can be integrated in a simple and stable manner in the metal frame, in that fitting parts which are pivotable in relation to one another are implemented integrally with the metal frame or are non-positively or positively connected thereto, for example, screwed or soldered” ([0003]) and thus Braun teaches “The non-positive connection of a fitting part to a structure can similarly be implemented as removable, in particular via one or more screws, or permanent, for example, by one or more rivets. … While a removable non-positive connection, in particular by screws, has the advantage of readjustment and uninstallation capabilities, a permanent non-positive connection or material bond reduces the risk of loosening of the connection” ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to include fastening the additional component such as the stiffening/reinforcing plates 51 and connecting the frame parts in a non-positive manner via one or more screws, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have “the advantage of readjustment and uninstallation capabilities” (thereby including:
(claim 4) wherein the connecting means comprises at least one screw connection, wherein the upper part frame has at least one passage which passes through two of the frame parts, wherein the passage extends parallel to the height direction of the seat and the at least one screw connection is arranged within the passage, which connects the two of the frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner; and/or
(claim 12) wherein the connecting means simultaneously fastens the additional component and connects the frame parts in a non-positive manner).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer in view of Hand and Braun as in claim 4, and further in view of Hartmann (2018/0126885)
Regarding claim 5, Grammer in view of Hand and Braun provide all elements (“connecting at least two frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner” provided by Braun as in claim 4), except for a bushing with a collar, a first internal thread, and a first screw.
Hartmann teaches “a structural assembly for a vehicle seat backrest” comprising “at least one interface element” (abstract) wherein “These interface elements serve in each case for connecting the structural assembly 1 to a further component of the seat arrangement” ([0109]), and “FIGS. 15 and 16 show two variants of interface elements in the form of screw connections 12K, 12L for use on a structural assembly” ([0180]) wherein “The screw connections 12K, 12L in each case comprise a screw insert 129A, 129B with a widened foot 130A, 130B” ([0181]) and “The widened foot 130A, 130B of the respective screw insert 129A, 129B has a larger diameter than the opening 103 in the surface element 10. A thread of each of the screw inserts 129A, 129B which is able to be brought into engagement with an assigned mating piece is arranged on the side of the surface element 10 opposing the foot 130A, 130B. In this manner the screw inserts 129A, 129B are particularly well secured to the surface element 10” ([0182]). Hartmann also teaches “the screw insert 129B according to FIG. 16 is configured as a threaded bushing with an internal thread” ([0183]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to further include a bushing with a collar, a first internal thread, and a first screw as the connecting means, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to employ a known means for connecting a structural assembly to a further component of the seat arrangement (thereby including “wherein at least one bushing is inserted into the passage parallel to the height direction of the seat, the bushing having at a first end a collar which is larger than the diameter of the passage and the bushing having a first internal thread in which a first screw engages from the second end opposite the collar, the first screw and the bushing connecting at least two frame parts to one another in a non-positive manner”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known vehicle seats; frame; struts; rails; bushing with collar and internal thread; screw) according to known techniques (connecting structural elements non-positively) in a manner that achieves predictable results (attaching structural assemblies to further components). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer in view of Hand and Braun as in claim 4, and further in view of Mitsuhashi (2009/0243323).
Regarding claim 6, Grammer in view of Hand and Braun provides all elements, except for wherein the passage is a long hole.
Mitsuhashi teaches “STORABLE SEAT FOR VEHICLE” (Title) wherein “The seat is moved in the front-rear direction via a link” (abstract) and “by shaping the another link from two members and making at least one of the fixing holes in the upper and lower link members into a long hole, it becomes possible to adjust the fixing position of the fixing member within the fixing hole when the another link is assembled. It thus becomes possible to adjust the length of the another link at the time of assembly in response to an error in the mounting location of the coupling member” ([0013]; see also [0029]-[0031] and Figs. 1 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grammer to include “wherein the at least one passage is a long hole,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have it be “possible to adjust the length of the another link at the time of assembly in response to an error in the mounting location.”
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known vehicle seats; frame; struts; rails; screws; long holes) according to known techniques (connecting structural elements with leeway for adjustment) in a manner that achieves predictable results (attaching structural components into an assembly). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grammer as in claim 1, and further in view of Sparks (6,767,055)
Regarding claim 11, Grammer provides all elements, except for a seat rail or slide arranged above or below the frame.
Sparks teaches “a vehicle seat with an integrated frame… The frame assembly includes a seat frame mounted to a slide rail pedestal anchored to the vehicle floor” (abstract) wherein “A pedestal 30 is rigidly mounted or anchored to the floor of the vehicle and spaces the seat frame 20 from the floor as shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B. … The pedestal 30 includes a slide rail 32 to allow the occupant to selectively position the seat 15 forward or rearward in the truck cabin. The mounting plates 29 of the seat frame 20 are bolted or otherwise rigidly secured to an upper slidable portion of the slide rail 32” (Col. 4, lines 51-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to include a seat slide rail above the seat frame, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “allow the occupant to selectively position the seat 15 forward or rearward in the truck cabin” (thereby including “wherein the additional component is at least one seat rail or a slide arranged above or below the frame”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Assuming independent claim 1 recites “wherein the upper part has a frame for supporting the seat part [[or]] and the lower part has a frame for fastening the vehicle seat to a vehicle body,” then claims 7-9 would be would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Claim Objections and Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights