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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on January 20, 2023. Claims 1-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s claim for priority as the Application Data Sheet and this Application' s disclosure both claim Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/266.971 filed on January 20, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2025 and January 20, 2025 (where a duplicate copy is on file, see below) are considered by the examiner.
There are two versions of the IDS filed on January 20, 2025 where one is signed and other is not signed. The signed copy is the one considered; where the unsigned copy is not considered and is annotated as such. No action required by the Applicant as the signed copy matches the prior art of the unsigned copy.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Spec. para. [0076] recite “…the first and second pin openings 94 and 96…” were fig. 5 shows “94” in two places and that “96” is not shown, such that the spec. and fig. 5 do no match. To correct this; update the fig. 5 by removing the additional “94” and replacing with the appropriate “96” in its place.
Spec. para. [0089] recite “…spring pin(s) 324…” where figs. 2-4 do not label “324” where the associated image of a pin is shown in the figs. To correct this; label “324” on fig. 2 on the image of the spring pin shown not yet installed.
Spec. para. [0106] recite “…a leg system 620…” where figs. 52-54 no label of “620”. To correct this; add “620” to at least fig. 52.
The lengthy drawings have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0064] recites “…Figure 52…” and should be “…Figure 54…”.
Para. [0108] and [0109] both recite “…the seat system 20 or 520…” and should be “…the seat system 20 or 420…”.
Para. [0109] recite “…The second side/rear leg assembly 632…” and should be “…The second side/rear leg assembly 634…”. (See at least: para. [0106]).
Para. [0110] recite “…the seat system 30…” and should be “…the seat system 20 or 420…”.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “…back support assembly…” claim 21 line 9 already recites “…a back support assembly…”, therefore there is a typo and claim 22 is missing “the”. Correction to “… the back support assembly…” will clear this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are 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.
Claims 2-16, 18-20 and 22-24 recites the limitation "A seat system…" in line 1. Where the associated independent claim 1, 17 or 21 already recites “A seat system…”. It is not clear if this is the same or a different “seat system”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiners interpret the claim language to be “The seat system…” as it is referring to the same system in the listed previous claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson (Kayak Seat Modification - The Easiest Way! [online]. YouTube.com, 2018 [uploaded on 2018-11-28]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ162x-tTno&t=332s>).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson discloses a seat system (kayak seat system) for a watercraft (kayak) defining a support surface (outer shell of the kayak) comprising:
a seat frame (molded seat frame);
a seat cover (marine grade cushion pad) supported by the seat frame;
at least one first mounting assembly (aluminum bar);
and at least one second mounting assembly (U-shaped PVC piece);
wherein the at least one first mounting assembly is secured (threaded screws) to the support surface;
the at least one second mounting assembly is secured (threaded screws) to the support surface;
the seat frame is slid horizontally to engage one of the first mounting assemblies; (where the video shows the aluminum bar installed to the seat frame; the aluminum bar being installed first to the kayak outer shell would be slid to engage the holes for the threaded screw)
and the seat frame is pivoted (pivoted) to such that the seat frame moves downward to engage the second mounting assembly. (See at least: the video from time 4:00-4:21 where the pivot action of the molded seat frame to get rest in the channel created by the U-shaped PVC piece and the kayak outer shell; “video modified by Examiner” {below}).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jerabek et al. (US 6948442 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Jerabek et al. discloses a seat system (outfitting system) for a watercraft (personal watercraft) defining a support surface comprising: (See at least: title, abstract)
a seat frame (seat 14);
a seat cover (fig. 1-2) supported by the seat frame; (See at least: the “lined” portion of the seat 14 in fig. 1-2)
a mounting assembly (fig. 1-2) for securing the seat frame to the support surface; (See at least: the holes on seat 14 in fig. 2, and the personal watercraft as shown in fig. 1)
and first and second hip assemblies (hip pad 218, hip braces 216, plurality of holes 224) supported by the seat frame, where at least one of the first and second hip assemblies is laterally adjustable relative to the seat frame. (See at least: Fig. 9; Col. 7 lines 12-13 “…Hip braces 216 may be movably coupled to seat 214 in any suitable manner…”).
Regarding claim 18, Jerabek et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Jerabek et al. discloses in which at least one of the first and second hip assemblies comprises:
an upright member (hip braces 216) supported by the seat frame; a lateral adjustment member (plurality of holes 224) supported by the seat frame for movement between first and second lateral positions relative to the seat frame. (See at least: Col. 7 lines16-28 “…The use of elongate slots as attachment features may allow hip braces 216 to be secured to seat 214 in any position along the slots, and thus may allow adjustments of a relatively fine degree to be made. Alternatively, as depicted in FIG. 9, seat 214 may include a plurality of holes 224 positioned in incrementally greater distances from the center of seat 214. This allows hip braces 216 to be fixed in a plurality of discrete positions relative to seat 214. This may help to prevent outward slippage of hip braces 216 under rigorous use conditions, and also may help to ensure that the hip braces may be easily positioned at equal distances from the center of seat 214…” where two embodiments are discussed)
Regarding claim 20, Jerabek et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Jerabek et al. discloses in which:
the lateral adjustment member defines a plurality of sockets (bolt or other fastener attached); (See at least: Col. 7 lines13-20 “…Hip braces 216 may be movably coupled to seat 214 in any suitable manner. For example, seat 214 may include one or more elongate slots through which a bolt or other fastener attached to hip braces 216 is extended and secured. The use of elongate slots as attachment features may allow hip braces 216 to be secured to seat 214 in any position along the slots, and thus may allow adjustments of a relatively fine degree to be made…”)
and at least a portion of an upper end (fig. 9) of the upright member extends at least partly into one of the plurality of sockets to support the lateral adjustment member in a desired lateral position relative to the upright member. (See at least: Fig. 9; Col. 7 lines13-20 as recited above).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 20020175549 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hamilton et al. discloses a seat system (seating system) for a watercraft (watercraft) defining a support surface comprising: (See at least: Abstract line 1)
a seat frame (pan 702); (See at least: fig. 13; para. [0086])
a seat cover (seat pad 706) supported by the seat frame; (See at least: fig. 14; para. [0086])
a mounting assembly (pads 725) for securing the seat frame to the support surface; (See at least: fig. 15; para. [0070])
and a back support (back rest 704) comprising: (See at least: fig. 13; para. [0068])
an upright assembly (lower member 740) supported by the seat frame, (See at least: fig. 16 and para. [0072])
a back support assembly (upper back support 732) supported by the upright assembly for movement relative to the seat frame, (See at least: fig. 16 and para. [0071])
and a guide member (flange portions 762) supported to engage the upright assembly and the back support assembly such that the guide member supports the back support assembly in at least upper and lower vertical positions relative to the upright assembly. (See at least: fig. 18 and para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 22, Hamilton et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Hamilton et al. discloses in which:
the upright assembly defines a guide slot (flange portions 764); (See at least: fig. 18 and para. [0075]).
back support assembly defines a guide cavity (aperture 768); (See at least: figs. 16 and 18 and para. [0076])
and the guide member engages the guide slot and the guide cavity to lock a position (four height adjustment positions) of the back support assembly in either of the upper and lower vertical positions. (See at least: figs. 16 and 18 and para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 23, Hamilton et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Hamilton et al. discloses in which:
the guide slot defines a guide path ("C"-shaped channel); (See at least: Examiner modified fig 16{below}; para. [0075])
and the guide cavity defines a perimeter edge (fig. 16); (See at least: Examiner modified fig 16{below}; para. [0075])
wherein the guide path and the perimeter edge are sized and dimensioned relative to each other such that the guide member engages the guide slot and the guide cavity such that the back support assembly moves up and down relative to the upright assembly; (See at least: Examiner modified fig 16 {below}; para. [0075] “…Referring to FIG. 18, upper member 738 and lower member 740 are preferably both "C"-shaped and include flange portions 762, 764 that provide opposed channels along their sides. Flange portions 762 of upper member 738 is sized and configured to engage (e.g., "capture") flange portions 764 of lower member 740. As such, upper member 738 can slide within and relative to lower member 740.…”)
a position (four height adjustment positions) of the back support assembly is held in either of the upper and lower vertical positions. (See at least: figs. 16 and 18 and para. [0079]).
PNG
media_image2.png
690
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Hamilton et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Hamilton et al. discloses in which the guide member engages the upright assembly and the back support assembly such that the guide member supports the back support assembly in at least one intermediate vertical position (two of the four height adjustment positions) between the upper and lower vertical positions (two of the four height adjustment positions). (See at least: figs. 16 and 18 and para. [0079]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (Kayak Seat Modification - The Easiest Way!) in view of Jerabek et al. (US 6948442 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Simpson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Simpson discloses further comprising: a back assembly (back support) supported by the seat frame; and first and second hip assemblies supported by the seat frame. (See at least: “video modified by Examiner” {above}).
However, Simpson does not disclose first and second hip assemblies supported by the seat frame.
Jerabek et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a back assembly (back support assembly 304) supported by the seat frame; and first and second hip assemblies supported by the seat frame. (See at least: fig. 10; col. 7 lines 35-40; 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 17-18 and 20 {above} for other structure, para. and figs. associated with the claim language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the kayak seat system {aluminum bar and U-shaped PVC piece} of Simpson with outfitting system {personal watercraft } of Jerabek et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of adding hip pads may help to hold the user's hips more snugly in the cockpit so that movements of the user's hips are transferred to the kayak more precisely and efficiently. (See at least: Jerabek et al. col. 1 lines 30-34). Further motivation is the benefit of hip pads is when a user anticipates running difficult whitewater or performing advanced freestyle moves, the user may install very snug outfitting for improved boat control (See at least: Jerabek et al. col. 1 lines 30-34).
Regarding claims 3-4, 6 and 8, claims 3-4, 6 and 8 are rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above. (See at least: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 17-18 and 20 {above} for other structure, para. and figs. associated with the claim language).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (Kayak Seat Modification - The Easiest Way!) in view of Hamilton et al. (US 20020175549 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Simpson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Simpson discloses further comprising a back support comprising: an upright assembly (hinge point) supported by the seat frame; and a back support assembly (back support) supported by the upright assembly for movement relative to the seat frame; and a guide member (pin) supported to engage the upright assembly and the back support assembly such that the guide member supports the back support assembly in at least upper and lower vertical positions relative to the upright assembly. (See at least: the video; “video modified by Examiner” {above}, where the back support has an upper vertical position and a lower horizontal position such that, it pivots).
However, Simpson does not disclose the lower vertical position.
Hamilton et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a back support comprising: an upright assembly supported by the seat frame; and a back support assembly supported by the upright assembly for movement relative to the seat frame; and a guide member supported to engage the upright assembly and the back support assembly such that the guide member supports the back support assembly in at least upper and lower vertical positions relative to the upright assembly. (See at least: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claim 13 {above} for other structure, para. and figs. associated with the claim language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the kayak seat system {aluminum bar and U-shaped PVC piece} of Simpson with seating system and watercraft of Hamilton et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having an adjustment mechanism configured to provide adjustment of the back rest up and down (in the vertical direction) without having to exit the watercraft. (See at least: Hamilton et al. Abstract).
Regarding claims 14-16, claims 14-16 are rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 13 above. (See at least: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 21-24 {above} for other structure, para. and figs. associated with the claim language).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9-12 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 5, 7 and 19, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…a detent tab…”. Where the closest art; Jerabek et al. (US 6948442 B2) discloses in col. 7 lines 12-15; “Hip braces 216 may be movably coupled to seat 214 in any suitable manner. For example, seat 214 may include one or more elongate slots through which a bolt or other fastener attached to hip braces 216 is extended and secured” where a detent mechanism is a suitable manner, also where there is no teaching as to why a detent tab would be used. Where in combination with Romero (US 9521907 B2) who teaches an adjustable thigh support where the adjustment device 146 has a series of detents 154 (See at least: figs. 13-14) is not obvious to change to a single detent tab.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 9, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…comprising at least one suspension arm, where the suspension arm engages the lateral adjustment member to limit pivoting of the hip pad support member relative to the lateral adjustment member.…”. Where the closest art; Jerabek et al. (US 6948442 B2) discloses use of an inflatable bladder to apply pressure from the hip pad to the user.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 10-12, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…comprising a pommel supported by the seat frame, where the seat cover is supported by the seat frame and the pommel.…”. Where the closest art; Jerabek et al. (US 6948442 B2) shows a seat 14 with a “pommel” area near a crotch of a user, though does not disclose that it is separate from the seat 14, itself. The additional elements of claims 11-12 are taught by VanDeRiet et al. (US 6955402 B2){disclosed on Applicant’s IDS} and are listed here as these claims depend on claim 10.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Cleveland (US 0392009 A) teaches a bed that with a back rest that is held in different positions using a ratchet 5 mechanism which appears similar to the applicant’s mechanism to adjust the back support (See at least: figs 2 and 6-7; col. 1line 44-50 and col. 2 lines 51-60).
Goucher et al. (US 6443089 B1) teaches an inflatable hip grip and seat for a kayak (See at least: figs. 1-2).
Robichaux et al. (US 6923139 B1) teaches a structural support and seating system for a watercraft (See at least: figs. 1-3).
Romero (US 9521907 B2) teaches an adjustable thigh support where the adjustment device 146 has a series of detents 154 (See at least: figs. 13-14).
Bergmark et al. (US 9783092 B2) teaches a rachet mechanism for a kayak seat back (See at least: fig. 4-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615