DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ preliminary Amendment, filed 2/24/2025, has been entered. Claims 13-24 are pending with claims 1-12 being currently cancelled (Preliminary Amendment) and claims 13-24 being currently added (Preliminary Amendment).
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 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation "the unrolled covering element" in lines 2-3;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the underside" in line 2;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the unrolled covering element" in lines 2-3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 16-17 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 15 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 13-14, 16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petot et al. (US 20200215937).
Regarding claim 13: Petot discloses a covering device 30 for covering a rail 20 of a longitudinal adjuster for a vehicle seat 10 (Figs. 1, 4; title; abstr.; [0029], [0037]). Petot discloses that the covering device has a faceplate 32 having an opening that is at least partially closable by at least one movable covering element that is guided in the faceplate (Figs. 3-5, 7, 8; [0038]). Petot discloses that at least one protective unit 34 is provided for safeguarding the covering element (Fig. 3; [0038]).
Regarding claim 14: Petot discloses that, as a first protective unit, a support unit is arranged under an underside of the unrolled covering element (Figs. 3, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 16: Petot discloses that, as a first protective unit, a support unit is arranged under an underside of the unrolled covering element (Figs. 3, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 23: Petot discloses a longitudinal adjuster for a motor vehicle seat, that the longitudinal adjuster comprises at least one first rail 20 and at least one second rail 20 arranged so as to be movable relative to the first rail, characterized in that the first rail has the covering device as claimed in claim 13 (Figs. 1, 2, 4; title; abstr.; [0029], [0037]).
Regarding claim 24: Petot discloses a vehicle seat 10 having a longitudinal adjuster as claimed in claim 23 (see above; Figs. 2, 4; [0029]).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petot et al. (US 20200215937) in view of Schukalski (DE 102017209452 – see IDS).
Petot discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17: Petot does not explicitly disclose that the support unit is arranged in a free space formed between a spindle and a cassette of the covering element. Schukalski discloses that a support unit can be arranged in a free space formed between a spindle and a cassette of the covering element (Fig. 5; [0024], [0036]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Petot so that the support unit is arranged in a free space formed between a spindle and a cassette of the covering element as taught by Schukalski. As both Petot and Schukalski are directed to a covering device for a rail of a longitudinally movable vehicle seat, as the structure of longitudinally movable vehicle seats and rails is very well-known, and Schukalski explicitly teaches that a support unit can be arranged in a free space formed between a spindle and a cassette of the covering element, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired position for a support unit from a finite selection of support unit positions for a vehicle seat rail system (i.e. selecting a desired position to provide best support). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petot et al. (US 20200215937) in view of Jonsson (US 20250001910).
Petot discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18: Petot does not explicitly disclose that as a second protective unit, a wiper unit is provided and is arranged so as to wipe a surface of the covering element before it is rolled up or unrolled. Jonsson discloses that as a second protective unit, a wiper unit is provided and is arranged so as to wipe a surface of the covering element before it is rolled up or unrolled ([0023], [0050] – a wiper that prevents dirt accumulation and provides the ability to support loads; Jonsson discloses other devices such as elements 10 which can be interpreted as wipers). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Petot so that as a second protective unit, a wiper unit is provided and is arranged so as to wipe a surface of the covering element before it is rolled up or unrolled as taught by Jonsson. As both Petot and Jonsson are directed to a covering device for a rail of a longitudinally movable vehicle seat, as the structure of longitudinally movable vehicle seats and rails is very well-known, as Petot teaches to prevent dirt and debris from entering the rail area, and Jonsson explicitly teaches that as a second protective unit, a wiper unit is provided and is arranged so as to wipe a surface of the covering element before it is rolled up or unrolled, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a support to act as a wiper unit from a finite selection of support unit functions for a vehicle seat rail system (i.e. wiping or not wiping). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19: Petot, as modified by Jonsson, discloses that the wiper unit has a wiper lip and/or a wiper edge that is in contact with the surface of the covering element (Figs. 2, 4A, 4B; [0050]).
Regarding claim 20: Petot, as modified by Jonsson, discloses that the wiper unit has a flexible arm or spring arm, on the free end of which there is provided a wiper lip and/or a wiper edge that is in contact with the surface of the covering element (Figs. 2, 4A, 4B; [0050]).
Regarding claim 21: Petot, as modified by Jonsson, discloses that the wiper lip is formed as a rubber lip (Figs. 5A, 5B; [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Automobiles having movable seats that slide along rails and accompanying structure are very well known in the art. Further, it is very well-known to provide coverings for the rails for both aesthetics and keeping dirt and debris out of the rail system. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Petot et al. (US 20200215937), Schukalski (DE 102017209452 – see IDS), Jonsson (US 20250001910), Yamada et al. (US 11267369), Tuffs (US 20200282869), Schulz et al. (US 20190308670), Clark et al. (US 20140091610), McCarthy (US 20220126731), Kim et al. (US 20220134911), and Kapusky et al. (US 20200276918). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a longitudinal adjuster for a motor vehicle seat, a vehicle seat, a covering device for covering a rail of a longitudinal adjuster for a vehicle seat, that the covering device has a faceplate having an opening that is at least partially closable by at least one movable covering element that is guided in the faceplate, and at least one protective unit is provided for safeguarding the covering element. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited positional relationships of the recited structural components and operational relationships of the recited structural components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed positional relationships of a support unit and the rolled and unrolled covering element and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights