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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al. in view of Cerreto et al. US 20100156065 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hammer et al. discloses [a seat 20 comprising:
a backrest 18;] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0042)
[a base for receiving the posterior of a human user;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0042) and
[the incline adjuster adapted to be activated so that at least one of the brackets is able to tilt with respect to the other while the track runs on the rollers to adjust the incline of the backrest and base.] (Fig. 4 & 5; As shown in Fig. 4 & 5, Hammer et al. illustrates wherein at least one of the brackets 48, 50, 70, 72 are tilted with respect to the other to adjust the incline of the backrest and base.)
Hammer et al. does not disclose at least a pair of spaced brackets each supporting rollers; an unevenly curved track; wherein the brackets are at differently curved parts of the track.
Cerreto et al. teaches [at least a pair of spaced brackets 204 each supporting rollers 206, 208;] (Fig. 2A; Paragraph 0031; Cerreto et al. discloses an upper roller 208 and a lower roller 206 mounted to a roller bracket 204, which engages with a track member 118.) [an unevenly curved track 40;] (Fig. 1C & 1D; Paragraph 0038; Cerreto et al. discloses that the track 118 may be in form of a circular arc, elliptical arc, or a curve with a changing radius, thus showing that the curvature of the track varies along the length.) [wherein the brackets are at differently curved parts of the track.] (Fig. 1C & 1D; Paragraph 0038; Cerreto et al. discloses that the track 118 may be in form of a circular arc, elliptical arc, or a curve with a changing radius, thus showing that the curvature of the track varies along the length which indicates that the track has at least two different curvatures. Additionally, as shown in Fig. 1C & 1D, Cerreto et al. illustrates brackets being placed at the differently curved parts of the track 118.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the curved track and bracket configuration of Cerreto et al. with the seat assembly of Hammer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more precise and responsive incline adjustment of the seat by enabling varied mechanical behavior at different curved pointed along the track, thus enhancing both user control and comfort.
Hammer et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein each bracket has a set of three or four of the rollers and all of the rollers of each set engage the track. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Cerreto et al. already discloses brackets with a pair of two rollers that engage with the track. The extension of this configuration to include one or two additional rollers would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the roller configuration of Cerreto to include one or two additional rollers to improve the seats stability without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the track and brackets are at one side of the seat,] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0045 of Hammer et al.; Hammer et al. discloses a right tilt mechanism base 32B which holds the track 40 and brackets 48, 50 at the right side of the seat.) and [a second substantially identical track and at least a second pair of substantially identical brackets are at an opposite side of the seat, arranged so that the track and brackets at each side function with respect to one another substantially the same way.] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0045 of Hammer et al.; Hammer et al. discloses a left tilt mechanism base 34B disposed opposite from the right tilt mechanism base 32B. The left tilt mechanism base 34B has a substantially identical track 40 and brackets 70, 72 compared to the right base and is arranged so that the track and brackets at each side function with respect to one another substantially the same way.)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the track, comprises a curved rail.] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; As shown in Fig. 4 & 5, hammer illustrates the track comprising a curved rail.)
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein each bracket has a roller 42, 54 and all the roller engages with the track 40;] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0045 of Hammer et al.) [the bracket has a set of two, three or four of the rollers 206, 208.] (Fig. 2A of Cerreto et al.; Paragraph 0031 of Cerreto et al.; Cerreto et al. discloses an upper roller 208 and a lower roller 206 mounted to a roller bracket 204, which engages with a track member 118.)
Regarding claim 5, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including wherein [the track 118 has curvature in the form of at least two radial arcs.] (Fig. 1C & 1D of Cerreto et al.; Paragraph 0038 of Cerreto et al.; Cerreto et al. discloses that the track 118 may be in form of a circular arc, elliptical arc, or a curve with a changing radius, thus showing that the curvature of the track varies along the length which indicates that the track has at least two different radial arcs.)
Regarding claim 6, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [the seat forming part of a commode 12.] (Fig. 1 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0042 of Hammer et al.)
Regarding claim 7, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [the seat forming part of a wheelchair.] (Fig. 1 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0042 of Hammer et al.)
Regarding claim 10, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a seat 20 in the form of a wheelchair or commode,] (Fig. 1 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0042 of Hammer et al.) wherein:
[the track and brackets are at one side of the seat,] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0045 of Hammer et al.; Hammer et al. discloses a right tilt mechanism base 32B which holds the track 40 and brackets 48, 50 at the right side of the seat.) and [a second substantially identical track and at least a second pair of substantially identical brackets are at an opposite side of the seat, arranged so that the track and brackets at each side function with respect to one another substantially the same way;] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; Paragraph 0045 of Hammer et al.; Hammer et al. discloses a left tilt mechanism base 34B disposed opposite from the right tilt mechanism base 32B. The left tilt mechanism base 34B has a substantially identical track 40 and brackets 70, 72 compared to the right base and is arranged so that the track and brackets at each side function with respect to one another substantially the same way.) [each track comprises a curved rail;] (Fig. 4 & 5 of Hammer et al.; As shown in Fig. 4 & 5, Hammer et al. illustrates the track comprising a curved rail.) [wherein each bracket has a set of two, three or four of the rollers and all the rollers of each set engage the track;] (Fig. 2A of Cerreto et al.; Paragraph 0031 of Cerreto et al.; Cerreto et al. discloses an upper roller 208 and a lower roller 206 mounted to a roller bracket 204, which engages with a track member 118.) [the track has curvature in the form of at least two radial arcs.] (Fig. 1C & 1D of Cerreto et al.; Paragraph 0038 of Cerreto et al.; Cerreto et al. discloses that the track 118 may be in form of a circular arc, elliptical arc, or a curve with a changing radius, thus showing that the curvature of the track varies along the length which indicates that the track has at least two different radial arcs.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 (Pages 1-4 of Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Hammer does not disclose an unevenly curved track (Page 1, lines 11-13 of Remarks). However, Cerreto et al. is now relied upon to teach this limitation. As disclosed in Paragraph 0038, Cerreto et al. discusses that the track can be in the form of a circular arc or an elliptical arc, and may have a changing radius. A track having a changing radius necessarily includes differently curved portions. Thus, meeting the limitation of an unevenly curved track. The applicant also argues that that Hammer et al. does not disclose spaced brackets each with a plurality of supporting rollers (Page 1, lines 14-17 of Remarks). However, Cerreto et al. is now relied upon to teach this limitation. As disclosed in Paragraph 0031 and illustrated in Fig. 2A, Cerreto et al. teaches a pair of brackets that each have more than one supporting rollers, including an upper roller and a lower roller that engages with the track. Thus, meeting the limitation of spaced brackets each with a plurality of supporting rollers.
Applicant argues that Cerreto’s brackets do not move with respect to the track and that it is instead the acuate support member that moves (Page 1, lines 19-21 of Remarks), and further that the support member is not unevenly curved (Page 2, lines 1-5 of Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. The examiner does not rely on Cerreto for teaching that the bracket themselves move along the track, but rather for teaching a track having multiple curvatures and a configuration in which rollers and brackets interact with different curved portions of that track. Cerreto expressly discloses that track may be circular, elliptical, or have a changing radius, thus disclosing differently curved parts along the track (Paragraph 0038).
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Hammer et al. with Cerreto et al. because Cerreto discloses a stationary track, whereas claim 1 requires a track that runs on rollers, and further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to modify Hammer using Cerreto (Page 2, line 7 – Page 4, line 10 of Remarks). This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Cerreto to replace Hammer’s moveable track with a stationary track. Rather, Cerreto is relied upon to teach the structural characteristics of a curved track and the bracket configuration, namely an unevenly curved rack, multiple rollers supported by a bracket, and brackets positioned at differently curved portions of the track, which are not explicitly disclosed by Hammer. Hammer already teaches a seat incline adjuster in which a track cooperates with rollers to permit tilting of the seat. Cerreto teaches that varying the curvature of a track and positioning roller brackets along different curved portions provides controlled motion and improved performance during tilting. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Cerreto’s teachings regarding track curvature and roller arrangement to Hammer’s incline adjuster would have been a predictable modification yielding known advantages, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611