September 19, 2025
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 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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, lines 5-7, the language “the at least one adjusting rods” and “the adjusting rods” is unclear and confusing language and also lacks antecedent basis. On lines 4-5, Applicant has claimed “at least one adjusting rod”, which means thee is at least one but has not claimed more than one. Therefore, when Applicant uses the plural “rods” in both instances above, it is unclear since Applicant has not claimed more than one “adjustment rod”.
In Claim 5, line 2, “an recess” is unclear and confusing language. The word “an” should be - - a - -. On line 2, “the elastic clamps” is unclear and confusing language and also lacks antecedent basis. On line 1, Applicant has only claimed “an elastic clamp” which is singular. The “elastic clamps” suggests there is more than one “elastic clamp”. On line 4, “the recesses” is unclear and confusing language and also lacks antecedent basis. On line 2, Applicant appears to only claim a single “recess”. Therefore, it is unclear and confusing when Applicant uses the term “the recesses”.
In claim 6, lines 1-3, the language “the adjusting rods” and “each adjusting rod” (2 instances) is unclear and confusing language and also lacks antecedent basis. As explained in the 112/2nd rejection above in claim 1, Applicant has only claimed “at least one adjusting rod”. Therefore, it is confusing when Applicant uses the language “the adjusting rods” and “each adjusting rod”.
In claim 7, lines 1 and 3-4, the language “each adjusting rod” and “the adjusting rods” is unclear and confusing language and also lacks antecedent basis. As explained in the 112/2nd rejection above in claim 1, Applicant has only claimed “at least one adjusting rod”. Therefore, it is confusing when Applicant uses the language “the adjusting rods” and “each adjusting rod”.
In claim 9, the language “characterized” is improper claim language.
In claim 10, the language “characterized” is improper claim language.
The aforementioned problems render the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach a width adjusting mechanism comprising locking kits and at least one adjusting rod; the locking kits are connected with the inner side plate, the at least one adjusting rods are connected with the outer side plate, and the locking kits and the adjusting rods are interlocked in the width direction of the armrest body.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636