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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 January 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertrand et al. (US Patent Number 6796607).
Regarding claim 21, Bertrand discloses a seat adapter, comprising: a base portion (of 10; see annotated figure below); a channel (of 10; see again annotated figure) positioned rearward from the base portion, the channel extending across a width of the seat adapter configured to receive a seat frame therein (at least a portion of 50 for instance), wherein the channel extends from under a first side of the seat adapter to under a second side of the seat adapter (the channel necessarily extends across a width from a first side to a second side as it is open to receive the full width of 50 from side to side); and a dovetail portion (of 10; see again annotated figure) extending rearward from a distalmost end of the seat frame, the distal end defining the rearward most edge of the seat frame, wherein the distalmost end of the seat frame is received within the channel (at least portions of 50, including a distalmost end and/or rearward most edge, are received in the channel; cf Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 25, Bertrand further discloses the base portion is configured to abut the seat frame (i.e. the adapter is mounted to 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated copy of Bertrand Figure 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand.
Regarding claim 26, Bertrand discloses a device as explained above and further discloses fasteners disposed in openings to secure components (as well as the various screws and bolts shown, see members 90/92, 100/112, etc.) but may not clearly disclose them arranged as claimed. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve strength, stability, and/or security for various users.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand in view of Chiba et al. (US Patent Number 9809267).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Bertrand discloses a seat adapter, comprising: a base portion (of 10; see annotated figure above); a channel (of 10; see again annotated figure) positioned rearward from the base portion, the channel extending across a width of the seat adapter configured to receive a seat frame therein (of 50 for instance); a dovetail portion (of 10; see again annotated figure) extending rearward from a distal end of the seat frame; wherein the channel is positioned between the base portion and the dovetail portion (this is the general arrangement; see figure below). Bertrand may not clearly disclose ribs or gussets as claimed. The incorporation of ribs and gussets is well known as shown by Chiba who discloses a related device including a plurality of ribs or gussets (at 32, etc.) coupled to a base portion and a dovetail portion, each of the plurality of ribs or gussets extending over a peak of a channel (see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide ribs or gussets as taught by Chiba in Bertrand’s device because this could increase strength and rigidity to improve stability and/or comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 2, Bertrand, modified as described, further discloses the distal end of the seat frame is received within the channel (the distal end of the frame, at 80 for instance, is received in this manner).
Regarding claim 5, Bertrand, modified as described, further discloses the base portion is configured to abut the seat frame (i.e. the adapter is mounted to 50).
Regarding claims 6-8, Bertrand, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above and further discloses fasteners disposed in openings to secure components (as well as the various screws and bolts shown, see members 90/92, 100/112, etc.) and recesses for a heating element (of/at 130; see at least lines 21-22 of column 7) but may not clearly disclose them arranged as claimed. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve strength, stability, and/or comfort for various users.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Bertrand discloses a device as explained above but may not clearly disclose ribs or gussets as claimed. The incorporation of ribs and gussets is well known as shown by Chiba who discloses a related device including a plurality of ribs or gussets (at 32, etc.) extending from a channel to a dovetail portion and extending from a base portion to the dovetail portion (see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide ribs or gussets as taught by Chiba in Bertrand’s device because this could increase strength and rigidity to improve stability and/or comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 24, Bertrand, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above including the ribs or gussets having a rib height that would appear to meet the limitations (at least based on the arrangement of the reference devices) but may not explicitly disclose a particular height. Changes in size and shape require only routine skill in the art however, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components sized as claimed based on normal variation to improve strength, stability, and/or comfort for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection in view of Bertrand have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bertrand does not disclose a channel extending across a width of the seat adapter from under a first side to a second side of the seat adapter. It is maintained that Bertrand does in fact disclose such a channel. The opening within the seat section 60 for receiving portions 50, 80, etc. that forms the channel necessarily extends across a width of the seat adapter from under a first side to a second side of the adapter to an extent sufficient to accommodate these portions. That is, the channel would extend at least from a first side to a second side across a width equal to that of the members as shown in Figure 6 as analyzed by Applicant in the 29 January 2026 reply. While the exact shape of the channel of Bertrand may differ somewhat from that of the invention, this is not captured in the current claim language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights