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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Zeiler et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0145320).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiler discloses an assembly comprising: a threaded passageway (of 202 for instance) having an inner diameter; a rod (at least a portion of 100) having an unthreaded hollow portion (at a free end for instance) and a stop (at 102); and a screw (204) having a threaded diameter equal to the inner diameter of the threaded passageway, the screw positioned within the unthreaded hollow portion of the rod and extending through the threaded passageway (see figures), the screw longitudinally movable with respect to the stop and the threaded passageway (cf. Figures 6 and 6A showing longitudinal movement relative to the passageway and note that 100, along with stop 102, would be freely movable to the right providing the longitudinal movement relative to the stop, while retracting the screw beyond the position of Figure 6 would also provide the longitudinal movement when the stop abuts member 200), wherein threads of the screw interface with the threaded passageway, such that rotating the screw causes the screw to move longitudinally within the threaded passageway; wherein the rod is capable of rotating freely with respect to the screw and the threaded passageway (this is the general arrangement); and wherein longitudinal movement of the screw causes the screw to make contact with the stop of the rod and apply force to the stop to cause the rod to separate from the threaded passageway (this is the general manner of operation; see Figures 6 and 6A for instance).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiler further discloses the screw is configured to interface with and be rotated with a hex key (300; an allen wrench is viewed as a hex key).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zeiler.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Zeiler further discloses a first support (at least portions of 200) comprising the threaded passageway; a second support (member opposite 200, not clearly shown) substantially parallel to the first support; and a body of material (12) extending between the first support and the second support, wherein the rod extends from the first support to the second support, and wherein causing the rod to separate from the threaded passageway increases a distance between the first support and the second support, wherein increasing the distance between the first support and the second support increases a tension on the body of material (this would be the general manner of operation; see at least paragraph 35). While Zeiler is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations of the claims, the arrangement of components may not clearly be shown. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, even if the claimed arrangement were not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement claimed (e.g. using the assembly of Figures 6 in that of Figures 1) based on normal variation because this could improve comfort, safety, and convenience for a user.
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler further discloses a first support (at least portions of 200) comprising the threaded passageway; a second support (member opposite 200, not clearly shown) substantially parallel to the first support; and a body of material (12) extending between the first support and the second support, wherein the threaded passageway comprises a nut (202 is a nut), the nut abuts the first support (see figures), causing the rod to separate from the threaded passageway causes the rod to separate from the first support and increases a distance between the first support and the second support (this is the general manner of operation). While Zeiler is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations of the claims, the arrangement of components may not clearly be shown. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, even if the claimed arrangement were not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement claimed (e.g. using the assembly of Figures 6 in that of Figures 1) based on normal variation because this could improve comfort, safety, and convenience for a user.
Regarding claim 1, Zeiler further discloses a chair (the device could be used as such) comprising: the assembly of claim 9; a first support (at least portions of 200) comprising the threaded passageway; a second support (member opposite 200, not clearly shown); and a body of material (12) extending from the first support to the second support; wherein the rod extends between the first support and the second support, the rod comprising: a main body having the unthreaded hollow portion and the stop; wherein the threaded passageway is configured to be positioned about and to interface with the threaded diameter of the screw (this is the general arrangement); and wherein rotating the screw clockwise causes the main body to move laterally away from the first support or the second support (based on typical thread conventions and/or reference position). While Zeiler is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations of the claims, the arrangement of components may not clearly be shown. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, even if the claimed arrangement were not clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement claimed (e.g. using the assembly of Figures 6 in that of Figures 1) based on normal variation because this could improve comfort, safety, and convenience for a user.
Regarding claim 2, Zeiler further discloses the threaded passageway is shaped to receive a wrench (it would be capable of such at least based on the figures and conventional construction).
Regarding claim 4, Zeiler further discloses the screw is configured to interface with a hex key (300; an allen wrench is viewed as a hex key).
Regarding claim 6, Zeiler further discloses the body of material comprises a stretchable material (it is described throughout as stretching), and wherein increasing a distance between the first support and the second support increases a tension on the body of material (this would be the case based on the arrangement of components).
Regarding claim 8, Zeiler further discloses the rod is rotatably coupled to the second support (this is the general arrangement).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to drawing objections and 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Zeiler does not disclose the newly added limitations of amended claim 9. However, it is maintained that Zeiler does in fact disclose such features as explained above. That is, Figures 6 and 6A show longitudinal movement of the screw relative to the passageway and the screw would be capable of longitudinal movement relative to the stop much as in the invention (by motion of 100 and/or by retracting the screw beyond a point where members 102 and 200 make contact). Zeiler further discloses longitudinal movement of the screw causes the screw to make contact with the stop of the rod and apply force to the stop to cause the rod to separate from the threaded passageway much as in the invention. The rejections have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
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