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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slip cover of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While a slip cover 140 is shown, it is not positioned as in claim 5. Other embodiments may show such covers, but they do not provide the rod, stop, and screw arrangement of claim 9. If, as explained below, Applicant relies on Figure 1 to support the showing of the slip cover, the drawings are objected to because they do not show reference sign 140 as claimed and described. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 2, 4-8, and 13 is 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 1 recites a chair comprising the assembly of claim 9 and the screw (which is recited as a part of the assembly of claim 9). It is unclear if Applicant intends to introduce a new screw or why the screw (which is claimed by dependency on claim 9) is recited.
Claim 7 recites the rod length is greater than a distance between the two supports, but claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites the rod as “extend[ing] between the… support[s].” This is unclear as for the extent of the rod to be within the space between supports, it would necessarily be of lesser or equal length.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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), the rod in initial contact with the threaded passageway (at least indirectly; the stop would be capable of direct contact with the passageway); 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), 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 is stopped by the stop of the rod, and causes 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, 4-8, 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); a body of material (12) extending from the first support to the second support; and the screw (at least as best understood); 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 5, Zeiler further discloses the rod further comprises a slip cover (at least a portion of 12) configured to be positioned over a portion of the screw that extends from the first support to the main body (much as in Figure 9 for instance).
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 7, Zeiler further discloses a length of the rod is greater than the distance between the first support and the second support when the body of material is unstretched, such that positioning the rod between the first support and the second support causes the body of material to stretch (this would be the case at least inasmuch as in the invention as best understood). Note that even if this were not clearly the case, changes in size require only routine skill in the art 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 rod sized as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and support for a user.
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 filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the drawings show the slip cover as claimed, that claims 1 and 7 are definite, and that Zeiler does not teach a rod in initial contact with the threaded passageway or longitudinal movement of the screw stopped by the stop to cause the rod to separate from the threaded passageway.
Regarding the drawings, it is acknowledged that various slip covers are shown. The slip cover positioned (and thus positionable) as claimed in the embodiment as claimed does not appear to be shown. If Applicant relies on Figure 1 to support this showing, the drawings should be amended to make this clear. Note that while various embodiments have been examined thus far, election of a single distinct species may be required in the future to ensure compact prosecution.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1 and 7, they remain indefinite as explained above. That is, the recitation of the screw in claim 1 after incorporation of the assembly of claim 9 (which includes the screw) is unclear. Likewise, a rod defined to extend between two borders being itself of a length greater than the distance between borders is unclear.
Regarding the anticipation rejection in view of Zeigler, the prior rejection articulated how Zeigler was viewed as meeting the limitations. That is, the rod provides contact “at least indirectly; the stop would be capable of direct contact with the passageway.” Rod 100 contacts stop 102, which, would be capable of contact with 202 (even if not fully shown, moving the screw to a leftmost position would result in such positioning). Note further that the passageway could be defined to include the adjacent portion of 200 for instance for more clear contact. If Applicant intends to claim the abutting of an end face of the rod with an exposed portion of the passageway more in line with disclosed embodiments of the invention, such could be incorporated into the claims. Further, longitudinal movement of the screw is in fact stopped by the stop (the screw is prevented from moving rightward beyond the stop) so as to cause the rod to separate from the threaded passageway (the movement causes 100 to move away from 202). The rejections have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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