DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/066,138 which claims priority to FRANCE FR 2401972 2/28/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is drafted without a clear transition from preamble to claim body. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this claim as though “comprising” (line 1) is ending the preamble and the limitation following “a fixed base…” is beginning the claim body. Recommend adding a colon after the word “comprising” in line 1.
In claim 1: “the fixed base” and “the base” seem to be used interchangeably. Consistent claim language should be used throughout the claims to refer to the same component/piece of the device.
In claim 10, ln 4: “the actuation of said actuating device causing compression or extension of the or each spring.”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “movement system for moving…” in claim 7, line 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the facing upper lateral edge" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
RE Claim 2: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “an angle between 10° and 80°”, and the claim also recites “and more preferably between 30° and 60°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Also, in claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, 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).
Claim 8 recites “each spring” in line 6, However, there is only one spring per claim 8, line 3. It is unclear how many springs there are and the relationship of the free end of the spring. Is there supposed to be at least one spring? Is it supposed to be each end of the spring?
Claims 2-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (US 5,927,679)(hereinafter Hill).
RE Claim 1: Hill discloses a support element for a vehicle seat comprising:
a fixed base (base 36) that is intended to be fastened to the floor of the vehicle (col 5, ln 50-55), and
a movable frame (32, 38) that is movable with respect to the base in an elevation direction,
the base extending between two lateral lower edges extending in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the elevation direction and opposite one another in a transverse direction perpendicular to the elevation direction and to the longitudinal direction (Figs 1, 2, 4),
the movable frame extending between two lateral upper edges extending in the longitudinal direction and opposite one another in the transverse direction (Figs 1, 2, 4),
the two lateral upper edges extending facing the two lower lateral edges, respectively, in the elevation direction (Figs 1, 2, 4),
characterized in that wherein the support element comprises two shock absorbers (118) each connecting one of the two lower lateral edges to the facing upper lateral edge (Figs 1, 2, 4),
each shock absorber (118) extending in an inclined direction forming a non-zero angle with the elevation direction (Fig 2).
RE Claim 3: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each shock absorber (118) comprises an upper end connected to the upper lateral edge and a lower end connected to the lower lateral edge (Fig 2)(all connected to each other, no direct connection required by the claim as currently drafted),
the connection of each end to the corresponding lateral edge being a pivot link about an axis of rotation extending in the transverse direction (col 6, ln 8-25)(Figs 3, 4).
RE Claim 4: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the two shock absorbers (118) are arranged symmetrically in the support element with respect to a median plane perpendicular to the transverse direction and extending an equal distance from each of the lateral upper edges (Figs 4, 6).
RE Claim 5: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the two shock absorbers (118) extend from a rear flank of the base to a front flank of the movable frame (Fig 6, 4, 3)
the rear flank of the base being spaced apart from the front flank of the movable frame in the longitudinal direction (Fig 6, 4, 3).
RE Claim 7: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising a movement system for moving the movable frame with respect to the base, the movement system being arranged between the movable frame and the base in the elevation direction and between each shock absorber in the transverse direction (abstract; also col 10, ln 5-12).
RE Claim 8: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the movement system comprises at least one movement unit (abstract; also col 10, ln 5-12) comprising
a spring (128) extending in the longitudinal direction (Fig 4) and
two crossed connecting bars each extending between an upper end attached to the movable frame by a pivot link and a lower end attached to the base by a pivot link (col 6, ln 8-25)(Figs 3, 4),
a free end of each spring being connected to the upper end of at least one connecting bar (col 9, ln 10-35)(also see Fig 4)(no direct connection required by the claim as currently drafted).
RE Claim 9: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 8,
further comprising two movement units arranged symmetrically in the support element with respect to a median plane perpendicular to the transverse direction and extending an equal distance from each of the lateral upper edges (Fig 4)(col 6, ln 8-25)(col 9, ln 10-35).
RE Claim 10: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 8,
further comprising a manual (movement of knobs as described in abstract) or motor-driven actuating device for moving the movable frame with respect to the base,
the actuation of said actuating device causing compression or extension of the or each spring (as described in abstract: “knob rotated to change the distance between the brackets thereby changing the amount by which the spring is compressed”).
RE Claim 11: Hill discloses the vehicle seat comprising the support element as claimed in claim 1,
the movable frame of the support element forming part of a seat portion of the seat which is movable in the elevation direction with respect to the base (Fig 1)(moves up and down, relative to the platform it rests upon).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2, as best understood, 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 Hill.
RE Claim 2: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each shock absorber (118) extends in an inclined direction (Figs 2, 3, 4, 7) forming an angle with the elevation direction of between 10° and 80° degrees even more preferably between 30° and 60° degrees for example substantially equal to 60° degrees in the position of the shock absorber that is most inclined with respect to the elevation direction (appears to be at least in Fig 7)(angle changes as described in col 2, ln 34-41).
Hill does not explicitly state the degree range of the angle formed from the shock absorber with respect to the elevation direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hill such that each shock absorber extends in an inclined direction forming an angle with the elevation direction of between 10° and 80° degrees even more preferably between 30° and 60° degrees for example substantially equal to 60° degrees in the position of the shock absorber that is most inclined with respect to the elevation direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involve routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) Routine Optimization citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). This would be done to improve comfortability for the user.
Claim 6, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanlon et al. (US 4,817,908)(hereinafter Hanlon).
RE Claim 6: Hill discloses the support element as claimed in claim 1 as previously discussed.
Hill discloses shock absorbers dampeners 118). Hill does not explicitly teach wherein the two shock absorbers are linear actuators such as pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders.
However, Hanlon teaches a seat comprising a dampening means to dampen the vibration of the seat (col 2, ln 4-15)(analogous art) and further teaches.
The prior art contained a device/method which differed from the claimed device/method by the substitution of some components with other components. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results.
In the instant case: Simple substitution of one known element (dampener) for another (pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder) would achieve the predictable result of shock and vibration absorption and improved comfort. Please see MPEP 2141 and 2143 for additional discussion on simple substitution of one known element for another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hill in view of Hanlon such that the two shock absorbers are linear actuators such as pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders as taught by Hanlon for the advantages of absorbing shock and vibration, thus improving comfort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various vehicle seats with bases and frames for adjustment and shock absorption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights