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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered.
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, 10-13, and 15-17 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 134, 204 each supporting rollers 206, 208;] (Annotated Fig. 1B below and 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. Cerreto further discloses another bracket assembly 134 with a roller that also engages with the track member.) [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;] (Annotated Fig. 1B below; 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.) [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.) [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.)
PNG
media_image1.png
741
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1B of Cerreto et al.
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.
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 5, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the tracks radial arcs recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.), including the track radial arcs and the number of rollers recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, 13, and 15-17, Hammer et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the number of rollers recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammer et al. in view of Cerreto et al. and further in view of Maiolo et al. US 20210220198 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Hammer et al., as modified, odes not disclose wherein the rollers are housed within the track and engage the track.
Maiolo et al. teaches [wherein the rollers are housed within the track and engage the track.] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0049; Maiolo et al. discloses a stationary frame plate 401 that forms the housing or support structure for the roller arrangement, with rollers 36, 38 positioned within the acuate guide arrangement and supporting the side plate 28. The side plate 28 is permitted to pivot relative to the stationary frame plate 40 “on rollers 36, 38.” Further, Fig. 2 illustrates the acuate groove 56 formed in the frame structure and the associated components housed therein. Therefore, the frame plate 40 functions as a housing that receives and supports the roller arrangement, while the rollers engage the arcuate guide structure to permit the side plate 28 to pivot relative to the stationary frame plate 40.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the roller housing of Maiolo et al. with the seat of Hammer et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for protecting and retaining the rollers within the track while maintaining guided rolling movement of the seat components, thus providing a compact and stable roller-and-track configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 (Pages 5-6 on Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cerreto et al. does not disclose “at least a pair of spaced brackets each supporting rollers” because paragraph 0031 refers to only a singular “roller bracket 204.” Applicant further argues that, even if bracket 204 were interpreted as two brackets, the brackets would be located at the same part of the track rather tan at different curved parts of the track, Tis argument is not persuasive. As illustrates in the newly added annotated Fig. 1B of Cerreto et al. above, Cerreto expressly shows a pair of spaced bracket/roller assemblies positioned at different parts of the arcuate track member 118. In particular, a roller assembly 134 having a roller disposed toward the rear portion of the arcuate track is spaced from the roller bracket 204 having upper and lower rollers 206, 208 disposed toward the front portion of the track. Thus, the two assemblies are not merely different portions of the same bracket 204, but are separate and spaced assemblies positioned at different locations along the curved track.
Additionally, because the two assemblies are positioned at different locations along track 118, and Cerreto expressly discloses that track 118 may have a changing radius (0038), the assemblies are positioned at different curved portions of the track. The changing radius means that the curvatures of the track varies along its length. Accordingly, Cerreto teaches the claimed relationship in which the spaced bracket/roller assemblies are located at differently curved parts of the track.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-8 on Remarks, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maiolo et al. US 20210220198 A1.
Conclusion
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
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights