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
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 1-7 and 10 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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 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 “a first track having a curved configuration” without further specification of the shape of the curved configuration.
Upon consultation with the Specification, the Office observes that Applicant has disclosed “A center 66 of a circle 64 partially defined by the first track 60 and having the radius R1 defines a rotational axis 80 about which the second track 62 and the seat assembly 24 connected thereto rotate” ([0015]) and depicts the center 66 defining a rotational axis 80 about which the tracks 60 and 62 and the seat assembly 24 rotate in all Figures (Figs. 1-6). Applicant further states “Seat assemblies can be utilized in connection with vehicles that may experience crashes. Limiting the forces applied to occupants of the seat assemblies and/or limiting movement of the occupants during crashes is desirable. In some instances, the seat assemblies are not initially positioned in ideal positions for crashes, so automatically moving seat assemblies to positions that better limit forces applied to occupants and/or better limit movement of occupants is desirable” ([0012]). However, there is no other description of any other types of curved configurations, for which the tracks may be operable for limiting the forces applied to occupants
First, while there is a presumption that an adequate Written Description of the claimed invention is present in the Specification as filed, a question as to whether a Specification provides an adequate Written Description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack Written Description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad Genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow Species with no evidence that the Genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises.
In this case, (2) a broad Genus claim is presented (broadly encompassing a track assembly having a first track having any/every possible “curved configuration”) but the disclosure only describes a narrow Species (specifically, a track assembly having a first track having a curved configuration “wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a first axis via the second track sliding along the first track”) with no evidence that the Genus is contemplated. For example, a “curved configuration” appears to broadly encompass e.g. any elliptical, hyperbolic, sinusoidal, etc. shape, such as a rollercoaster track or the like. However, Applicant has plainly not demonstrated that Applicant possessed such a wide variety of other configurations for the tracks at the time of filing.
Accordingly, the claim lacks an adequate Written Description for its full scope.
Second, based on the foregoing, it is unclear what other “curved configuration” would or would not fall within the claim scope. For example, would a rollercoaster track following a sinusoidal curved configuration provide “a first track having a curved configuration” for the disclosed Invention or not? Would a vehicle seat bearing an elliptical track? These possibilities appear to not be intended to be encompassed by the claims based on Applicant’s disclosure, but the claims might or might not encompass them based on their current language. Furthermore, it appears that the curved configuration rotatable about a rotational axis 80 is critical to the functioning of the track to limit the forces applied to the occupant, based on Applicant’s disclosure, but this feature is not in claim 1.
Accordingly, the claim scope is rendered Indefinite.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected by dependency, also failing to limit the claims to the Described scope in a Definite manner. In contrast, claim 8 recites “wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a first axis via the second track sliding along the first track,” which provides the requisite curved configuration.
For examination purposes, claims will be read as though independent claim 1 incorporates “wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a first axis via the second track sliding along the first track” from claim 8:
“1. (Currently Amended) A track assembly, comprising:
a first track having a curved configuration;
a second track slidably connected to the first track;
a seat assembly connected to move with the second track, the seat assembly comprising a seat base and a seat back adjustable to a plurality of seat positions relative to the second track,
wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a first axis via the second track sliding along the first track;
a lock configured to selectively lock the first track and the second track; and
a release lever configured to automatically actuate the lock.”
“8. (Currently Amended) The track assembly of claim 1, wherein the seat assembly
the second axis is perpendicular to the second track and not parallel with a seat back axis about which the seat back is adjustable.”
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bullerdieck (4,085,963).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bullerdieck discloses A track assembly (abstract “An integrally formed safety seat for vehicles, in particular passenger cars, including a seat-supporting base adapted to be displaced longitudinally along the vehicle bottom, a back pivotably attached to the seat, a headrest as well as a safety belt with a retarding device, comprising structure for pivoting both the entire seat and the occupant belt-fastened thereto around an axis that is situated either essentially transversal or at some acute angle to the longitudinal vehicle direction approximately above the seat center near the level of the back end or of the headrest, whereby the entire seat is adapted to be moved upwardly, forwardly and laterally on upwardly concave two-plate bearings with which driving and braking mechanisms are associated for respectively pushing and retarding said seat to its safety position in which it is pivoted substantially towards a collision point, said two-plate bearings being displaceably attached to each other in such a way that their relative movement is possible only through a control preferably responding to a predetermined deceleration value, said braking mechanism comprising deformable sections of at least one of said concave plate bearings” and Figs. 1-9 esp. Figs. 3 and 7), comprising:
a first track having a curved configuration (Col. 6, lines 52 “a sliding block 16”);
a second track slidably connected to the first track (Col. 6, lines 51-52 “a downwardly concave sliding plate 15”);
a seat assembly connected to move with the second track (Col. 6, lines 53-61 “Together, sliding plate 15 and sliding block 16 comprise a cup-type or sole bearing that warrants that the sliding block 16 is forcibly moved to the front and upwardly only when an excessive deceleration takes place, e.g., in case of a collision, whereby the entire seat is pivoted approximately in the direction of impact, including the occupant who is fastened thereto by means of a three-point belt”), the seat assembly comprising a seat base (Col. 6, lines 52-53 “the seat proper designated by reference numeral 20”) and a seat back adjustable to a plurality of seat positions relative to the second track (Col. 6, lines 41-42 “The seat 10 has a headrest 11 and a back 12 pivotable with respect to the seat base”),
wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a first axis via the second track sliding along the first track (Col. 7, lines 18-21 “It will be seen from FIG. 3 that the tilting motion of the sliding block 16 on the sliding plate 15 around an imaginary axis A will correspond to an angle α that may preferably extend to about 45°”);
a lock configured to selectively lock the first track and the second track (Col. 7, lines 32-34 “In order that the drive means 27 which assist in tilting the seat 10 cannot be actuated prematurely, a locking device 28 (not shown in detail) is provided”); and
a release lever configured to automatically actuate the lock (Col. 7, lines 4-9 “The rear portion of the support 14 houses a drive means 27 which may be a hydraulic cylinder, a bursting jack or the like and which will be operated in an emergency by a trigger or release device (not shown here) so as to push the sliding block 16 forward on the sliding plate 15, pivoting the seat 10”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bullerdieck discloses “It will be seen from FIG. 3 that the tilting motion of the sliding block 16 on the sliding plate 15 around an imaginary axis A will correspond to an angle α that may preferably extend to about 45°” (Col. 7, lines 18-21) and, e.g., “Stops at both ends of said arched sliding plate may be provided for limiting the pivoting angle of the seat to within 70°, preferably within 45°. Such limitation is useful in that the reclined inmate will be in a position to retain his or her perspective on the traffic events while there is full protection of the almost lying body against crash forces of a wide variety” (Col. 3, lines 34-36). Accordingly, Bullerdieck anticipates:
(claim 2) wherein an angular extent of the first track is at least 30 degrees and less than or equal to 120 degrees; and further
(claim 3) wherein the angular extent of the first track is at least 40 degrees and less than or equal to 50 degrees.
Although not required to render obvious the claim, Applicant may also see Serber below, which teaches “The range of arcuate motion of seat 22 can be as much as 35 degrees in a forward direction and 20 degrees rearward” ([0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Bullerdieck discloses a mechanical actuator operably coupled with the release lever to automatically unlock the lock (e.g., Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 6 “control means that are either manually or automatically operative may be coupled to the closing device of an adjacent door or to said belt fastening device for the occupant, said control means governing said drive means so as to pivot said seat into its safety position. Thus the respective person may select to have himself or herself tilting either automatically in case of an accident or right at the outset as soon as the door is closed or the belt fastened, cooperating door sensors or belt controls acting to release the drive means for the purpose”).
Regarding claim 5, Bullerdieck discloses an actuator operably coupled with the release lever to automatically unlock the lock, the actuator including at least one of a motor, an electromagnet, a piezoelectric material, or a pyrotechnic device (Col. 4, lines 47-52 “It is to be emphasized that said drive means may involve any sort of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or electrodynamic power source which, in accordance with the invention, will permit imparting said top-speed tilting motion to both the seat and the person fastened to it”; Col. 7, lines 4-9 “The rear portion of the support 14 houses a drive means 27 which may be a hydraulic cylinder, a bursting jack or the like and which will be operated in an emergency by a trigger or release device (not shown here) so as to push the sliding block 16 forward on the sliding plate 15, pivoting the seat 10”; and Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, line 5 “the drive means 27 may comprise a hydraulic or explosive unit backed up by structural elements (not shown) in a duct chamber 52 that may be filled with suitable material. The drive means 27 is actuated by a trigger or release device 31 with an inertia-operated control element such as a snap or catch pendulum or any other threshold-responding mechanism”).
Although not required to render obvious the claim, Applicant may also see Serber below, which teaches “Control device 76 also can take the form of a piston in a pressure cylinder with a pyrotechnic device having the ignition timing controlled by the vehicle's computer or other restraints deployment system. Thus, an electric solenoid can actuate or ignite the pyrotechnic device at collision to boost or accelerate seat rotation and the compound backrest motion” ([0070]) and “Although not shown, using a turning knob or motorized means to cause seat movement by selectively rotating the rollers elements 27 around its axis and thereby rotate seat track 28 to a new position can be utilized” ([0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Bullerdieck discloses an electronic controller controlling operation of the actuator (Col. 4, lines 47-52 “It is to be emphasized that said drive means may involve any sort of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or electrodynamic power source which, in accordance with the invention, will permit imparting said top-speed tilting motion to both the seat and the person fastened to it”; an electrodynamic power source must certainly have an electronic controller of some sort).
Regarding claim 7, as in claim 6, Bullerdieck discloses “It is to be emphasized that said drive means may involve any sort of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or electrodynamic power source which, in accordance with the invention, will permit imparting said top-speed tilting motion to both the seat and the person fastened to it” (Col. 4, lines 47-52) and, e.g., “The rear portion of the support 14 houses a drive means 27 which may be a hydraulic cylinder, a bursting jack or the like and which will be operated in an emergency by a trigger or release device (not shown here) so as to push the sliding block 16 forward on the sliding plate 15, pivoting the seat 10” (Col. 7, lines 4-9) and “a control device -- such as a gimbal-mounted variable detent pendulum -- may be provided for sudden release of said drive means or of said locking means at vehicle decelerations exceeding a predetermined threshold value, e.g., in the range of 5 to 15 meters per square-second and by all means above a threshold limit governing belt tightening devices that cooperate with the seat. When a crash occurs, the occupant's belt is stretched tight first as the tensioning device is activated beyond the last-mentioned threshold limit, and with deceleration then increasing, the drive means will be released for split-second action to tilt the safety seat” (Col. 4, lines 24-36).
Although Bullerdieck does not specify that the “trigger or release device” that operates “in an emergency” such as “When a crash occurs” is a crash sensor per se, it appears that the trigger or release device is inherently or implicitly acting as a crash sensor regardless. Accordingly, Bullerdieck discloses a crash sensor connected to the electronic controller;
wherein the electronic controller is configured to operate the actuator to actuate the release lever and disengage the lock in accordance with the crash sensor detecting a crash.
Regarding claim 10, Bullerdieck discloses wherein the seat back is adjustable about a seat back axis (Col. 7, lines 16-17 “The angle of inclination of the back 12 in respect of the seat bottom 20 is controlled by an adjusting knob 21”; the seat back axis being around adjusting knob 21) and is adjustable about a rotational axis that is offset from the seat back axis (Col. 7, lines 18-21 “It will be seen from FIG. 3 that the tilting motion of the sliding block 16 on the sliding plate 15 around an imaginary axis A will correspond to an angle α that may preferably extend to about 45°”) such that a recline angle of the seat back is adjustable via movement of the seat back about the seat back axis and via movement of the seat assembly about the rotational axis (i.e., as depicted in Fig. 3).
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bullerdieck as in claim 1, and further in view of Yamada (2008/0290706).
Regarding claim 8, Bullerdieck discloses “It will be seen from FIG. 3 that the tilting motion of the sliding block 16 on the sliding plate 15 around an imaginary axis A will correspond to an angle α that may preferably extend to about 45°” (Col. 7, lines 18-21); “control means that are either manually or automatically operative may be coupled to the closing device of an adjacent door or to said belt fastening device for the occupant, said control means governing said drive means so as to pivot said seat into its safety position. Thus the respective person may select to have himself or herself tilting either automatically in case of an accident or right at the outset as soon as the door is closed or the belt fastened, cooperating door sensors or belt controls acting to release the drive means for the purpose” (e.g., Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 6); and “Further in FIGS. 4 and 5, it will be evident that the sliding plate or pivoting face 15 has a central aperture 19 wherein the central support 17 is adapted to be moved as soon as the locking element, when breaking at its rated break point, will permit the shifting of the sliding block 16, 16a whose curvature in a direction transverse to the line IV--IV in FIG. 5 is preferably the same as that of the sliding plate 15. Consequently, the seat 10 may also tilt sidewise in case of a lateral or oblique crash. The aperture 19 may, therefore, be shaped so as to allow sidewise pivoting of the seat 10 to a larger extent. FIG. 6b shows an embodiment wherein a distended recess 19a in a generally pear-shaped aperture 19 will increase the lateral pivoting range” (Col. 7, lines 52-65).
However, Bullerdieck fails to disclose wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a second axis perpendicular to the second track via a pivot rotatably coupling the seat assembly with the second track.
Yamada teaches “A seat system for a vehicle, includes a first pair of slide rails and a second pair of slide rails arranged on a vehicle compartment floor so as to extend in a front-rear direction of the vehicle” (abstract and Figs. 8-11A) wherein “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the second rear seat 5b (5a) is provided at the second slide rails 8 (7) via the upper rails 10 functioning as the forward-rearward movement mechanism and a seat rotation retaining mechanism 40 functioning as the contact avoiding mechanism” ([0062]) wherein “The seat rotation retaining mechanism 40 is provided between the second rear seat 5b (5a) and the bases 12. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the seat rotation retaining mechanism 40 includes a lower base 41 in a ring shape being fixed at the bases 12, a first upper base 43 in a ring shape being fixed on the lower surface of the second rear seat 5b (5a) and a second upper base 44 in a ring shape being fixed at the first upper base 42 by calking pins 43” ([0065]) and “the first and second rear seats 5a and 5b are rotatable in a direction where the first and second rear seats 5a and 5b face each other by being outwardly swayed. Hence, communication between the occupants seated on the first and second rear seats 5a and 5b respectively may be encouraged” ([0049]).
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 Bullerdieck to include a seat rotation retaining mechanism such as a lower base in a ring shape with a first upper base in a ring shape fixed on the lower surface of the seat, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide rotatability of the seat such that “communication between the occupants … may be encouraged” (thereby including “wherein the seat assembly is rotatable about a second axis via a pivot rotatably coupling the seat assembly with the second track; and
the second axis is perpendicular to the second track and not parallel with a seat back axis about which the seat back is adjustable”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known seat; sliding block; sliding plate; locking device; release device; rotating rings) according to known techniques (assembled together into a vehicle seat) in a manner that achieves predictable results (allowing a vehicle seat to slide forward during a crash or as desired by the occupant; allowing a vehicle seat to rotate as desired by the occupant). 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.
Regarding claim 9, Bullerdieck discloses “A suitable arrangement is shown in FIG. 3 wherein the basic design includes a frame or base 13, a support 14 having bottom guide rails 24 at both sides for cooperation with slide rails 22 fixed to the vehicle bottom 9” (Col. 7, lines 10-15) wherein “The upper side of the support 14 forms a downwardly concave sliding plate 15 on top of which a sliding block 16 supports the seat proper designated by reference numeral 20” (Col. 6, lines 50-53). Accordingly, Bullerdieck discloses “a third track slidably connected to a fourth track, the fourth track having a linear configuration;
wherein the first track is mounted to the third track.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Faruque (10,821,935) (cited by Applicant) discloses a vehicle restraint system (abstract) included on a seat comprising a pivotable base 48 which rotates about vertical axis V, wherein “the autonomous vehicle may include seats free to rotate during the operation of the vehicle. This may allow the occupants of the seats to face each other and to interact. This may also allow all of the occupants to relax, interact with one another, and focus on vehicle amenities” (1:10-14). However, this reference does not appear necessary at this time.
The reference to Serber (2005/0242634) (cited by Applicant) discloses “A seat assembly (21) for a vehicle including a seat (22), a seat mounting assembly (20) mounting the seat (22) for movement along an upwardly concaved arcuate path, a backrest (25) assembly with a backrest member (23) having a lower portion (18) coupled for arcuate motion with the seat (22) and an upper portion (99) mounted for movement in a vertically extending direction” (abstract) i.e. a first track = arcuate members 141; a second track = arcuate guide tracks 140; a seat assembly = seat pan 24 etc.; a lock = seat releasable locking or detent assembly 130; and release lever = seat releasable locking or detent assembly 130. However, this reference does not appear necessary at this time.
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