DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed February 10, 2026 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the exploded view of Figure 7 appears on the same drawing sheet as another figure, yet appropriate bracketing is not provided. When an exploded view is shown in a figure which is on the same sheet as another figure, the exploded view should be placed in brackets. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 10-13 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 10 recites the limitation "the different dimensional features" in lines 1 to 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation the “head diameter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation the “foot diameter” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the space-width dimension” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the foot surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the head surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the drive mechanism conformed according claim 1” in line 2. This recitation is grammatically vague.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the pivoting axis of the toothed sector” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-13, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Napau et al (US12503016).
Note a drive mechanism able to displace at least one part of a seat, specifically a vehicle seat, where the drive mechanism comprises: a side plate (2) provided with a through opening (adjacent the sector gear 4, as shown in Figure 1) having a first transverse axis; a centering element (circular member adjacent 48a, as shown in Figures 2A-3B) comprising a through opening, where the centering element is fixed to the side plate, and where the through opening is centered on the first transverse axis (see Figure 2D); a drive member (48a) passing through the through opening of the side plate and the through opening of the centering element, where the drive member is pivotable around the first transverse axis, and where the drive member comprises a first toothed stage (the smaller diameter as shown in Figure 2D) engaging with the centering element, wherein it comprises a second toothed stage (the larger diameter as shown in Figure 2D) having a different shape (see Figure 2D) from the first toothed stage, where the second toothed stage is coaxial and secured (see Figure 2D) to the first toothed stage, and where the second toothed stage is intended to engage with a toothed element (4) for displacing the at least one seat part.
Regarding claim 9, note the second toothed stage has at least one shape feature different from a shape feature of the first toothed stage (see Figure 2D), where the shape feature is a number of teeth and/or shape of the teeth and/or different dimensional features.
Regarding claim 10, note the different dimensional features comprise at least one dimension among the pitch, head diameter, foot diameter, the space-width dimension, the angle between two opposite sides forming the summits of the teeth, the foot surface and the head surface. See Figure 2D.
Regarding claim 11, note seat (see Figure 1), in particular a vehicle seat, comprising: the drive mechanism conformed according claim 1; at least one pair of track elements (see Figure 1); a seat bottom (see lines 40-43 in col. 7) borne by the at least one pair of track elements; a seat back (see lines 40-43 in col. 7) borne by the seat bottom, where the seat bottom comprises a seat bottom chassis, and where the seat bottom chassis comprises the side plate extending along a longitudinal direction (see Figure 1), where a crosspiece (3 or front rail, as shown in Figure 1) extends along a transverse direction, and where a toothed element engages with the second toothed stage, and where the rotation of the drive member displaces the seat bottom chassis along a vertical direction (see lines 48-50 in col. 7).
Regarding claim 12, note the toothed element comprises at least one control rod (elongated body portion of 4) provided with a toothed sector (top edge at 4a), where the control rod is pivotably articulated around a second transverse axis (thru 3) relative to the side plate and around a third transverse axis (thru 126a as shown in Figure 5C) relative to the track element, where the second transverse axis is the pivoting axis of the toothed sector; the rotation of the drive member pivots the control rod around the second transverse axis and third transverse axis.
Regarding claim 13, note the toothed element comprises a rack (sector gear 4 is a rack).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Note the objection to claim 8 above. This claim is not considered allowable in view of the objection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A gear driven adjustment mechanism for a vehicle seat is shown by each of Shinozaki (US7828384) and Becker et al (US10843591).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/August 20, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights