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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 22, while claim 31 is objected to as being a substantial duplicate of claim 26. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuss (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0138947).
Regarding claim 15, Nuss discloses an armrest, comprising: a base (11); an arm support (12) pivotable relative to the base between a first and a second position about a pivot axis; at least one pivoting part (15 for instance) that is pivotable relative to the base about the pivot axis in at least one direction; and a locking device configured to lock pivoting movement of the arm support relative to the base or relative to the at least one pivoting part, wherein the locking device comprises at least two wheels (16, 17) that are rotatably mounted on the arm rest or on the base and each have first locking surfaces (at least at 32 and/or other contact surfaces), and at least one latch (20) that is movable between a latching position and a release position and has second locking surfaces (at 34, etc.), the first and second locking surfaces being engaged in the latching position and disengaged in the release position (this is the general arrangement), wherein the locking device further comprises first transfer means (30) associated with the wheels and second transfer means (29) associated with the base or the arm support, by which the arm support is supported on the base in the latching position in at least two different use positions (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 16, Nuss further discloses the second transfer means are immovably held on the arm support or the base (they are immovably held on the base much as in the invention).
Regarding claim 17, Nuss further discloses the second transfer means are arranged on the at least one pivoting part that is pivotable about the pivot axis (29 is formed on 15).
Regarding claim 21, Nuss further discloses the at least two wheels are interconnected and move synchronously (i.e. 16 and 17 are fixed to one another).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Nuss further discloses the arm support has a first side support and a second side support (at either side of 13 for instance), a first of the wheels being arranged on the first side support and a second of the wheels being arranged on the second side support (at least indirectly).
Regarding claim 24, Nuss further discloses the first locking surfaces and the second locking surfaces are formed by friction surfaces or wedge surfaces (see at least paragraphs 65 and 66).
Regarding claim 25, Nuss further discloses each of the first locking surfaces of the at least two wheels is associated with a second locking surface of the at least one latch so as to form a latch device (this is the general arrangement at least as best understood).
Regarding claim 27, Nuss further discloses the second transfer means includes a toothing and the first transfer means includes a toothing that engages with the toothing of the second transfer means (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claim 28, Nuss further discloses the wheels arrange to transfer a force acting on the arm support in the latching position to the base (this is the general arrangement).
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) 18-20, 23, 26, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuss.
Regarding claims 18-20 and 23, Nuss discloses an armrest as explained above including synchronous movement of various parts and pivoting elements associated with the arm support so as to form a pivot joint with the base (various parts including sides of 13, connecting components, etc. would meet this limitation), but may not disclose two pivoting parts, each associated with a wheel, and/or the number of wheels claimed. Duplication and rearrangement 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 parts as claimed based on normal variation to improve performance, comfort, and safety for various users.
Regarding claims 26 and 31, Nuss discloses an armrest as explained above but does not specify materials. The claimed materials are well-known and material variation is a routine design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use material as claimed base on normal variation to improve cost, manufacture, or performance for a user.
Regarding claim 29, Nuss renders an armrest as claimed obvious as set forth above; see the rejections of claims 15, 23, and 25. That is, claim 29 recites the same limitations as claims 15, 23, and 25, and Nuss anticipates the limitations of claims 15 and 25, while those of 23 would have been obvious as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant suggests that Nuss does not disclose or render obvious a device as claimed. While the purported benefits of the invention detailed by Applicant are appreciated, Applicant has not specifically pointed out how Nuss fails to meet the claimed limitations. As explained above, Nuss discloses and/or renders obvious a device as claimed and 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