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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 27 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14 and 16-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 6, 10, 14 and 16 are currently amended. Claims 3-4, 7, 9, 11-12 and 17-18 are original. Claims 5, 8, 13, 15 and 19-20 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25 March 2026. Examiner withdraws the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In view of the amendment to claims 1-2, 6, 10, 14 and 16 the previous rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment to the claims. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1-4, 8-12, 15-18 and 20 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, please refer to the detailed discussion below.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Thomas (US 20070108813 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1041
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a seat (seat assembly 10; See at least: fig. 1) for a boat passenger (“persons”; See at least: para. [0027] “four different types of persons”, where “for a boat passenger” is intended use in the preamble providing no structural limitation, See at least MPEP 2111.02.II), the seat comprising:
a seat back (backrest 14, supplemental seat 16, toddler armrest 18, and head rest 20; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0028]) having a first passenger-facing support surface (back support surface 24; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0028]), the seat back comprising:
a main support (backrest 14; See at least: fig. 1) having a recess (receptacle 15; See at least: figs. 1-4 and para. [0028] “...supplemental seat 16 is pivotally interconnected with backrest 14 such that supplemental seat 16 is contained in receptacle 15 defined in backrest 14 when supplemental seat 16 is in its closed position as shown in FIG. 1...”), and
a supplemental support (supplemental seat 16 and supplemental backrest 28; See at least: fig. 1 and fig. 5A with para. [0028]) movable relative to the main support between a first position (closed position; See at least: figs. 1 and 5A and para. [0028]) wherein a first portion (back support surface 24; See at least: fig. 1) of the supplemental support forms part of the first passenger-facing support surface and a second position (open position; See at least: figs. 2 and 5A and para. [0028]) wherein a second portion (supplemental backrest 28; See at least: fig. 4) of the supplemental support forms part of the first passenger-facing support surface, wherein at least a third portion (side of supplemental backrest 28 facing backrest 14; See at least: figs. 5A and 5B where supplemental backrest 28 is in receptacle 15, fig. 5A, and spaced apart from the backrest 14, fig. 5B) of the supplemental support is received in the recess of the main support in the first position and is spaced apart from the recess in the second position (See at least: fig 5B);
wherein the supplemental support is rotatable between the first position and the second position, with respect to the main support (See at least: figs. 5A and 5B, mechanical linkage 30 where supplemental seat 16 rotates between closed and open positions).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Thomas discloses further comprising:
a seat bottom (seat 12; See at least: fig. 1) having a second passenger-facing support surface (primary seating surface 13; See at least: fig. 1) sized and shaped to support legs and feet of the boat passenger (See at least: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Thomas discloses wherein the main support comprises a center portion See at least: figs. 3, 5A and 5B and portion where receptacle 15 is located), and laterally opposed support members (back support surface 19; See at least: fig. 1), the center portion extending between the laterally opposed support members, and the recess being formed between the laterally opposed support members (See at least: figs. 3, 5A and 5B).
Regarding claim 4 Thomas discloses all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Thomas discloses wherein the main support defines a top edge (See at least: fig. 1 unlabeled top edge of the backrest 14) and a bottom edge (See at least: fig. 1 unlabeled bottom edge of the backrest 14), and wherein the recess extends at least partially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the main support (See at least: figs. 5A and 5B).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20070108813 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuller et al. (US 201800297670). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
694
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Thomas does not disclose wherein the supplemental support comprises at least one of a strap, a grip, or a handle (See at least: fig. 2 where supplemental seat 16 is shown in the open position).
Fuller et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplemental support (cushions A, C and D; See at least: figs. 5-6) comprises at least one of a strap, a grip, or a handle (straps 41 and 43; See at least: fig. 5).
However, Fuller et al. does not teach the supplemental support (See at least: figs. 5-6 where the cushions form part of the seat bottom and not the seat back).
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 supplemental seat 16 and supplemental backrest 28 of Thomas with straps 41or 43 of Fuller 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 assist a user in moving or pivoting the supplemental seat to different positions (See at least: Fuller et al. para. [0026] “In order to assist in moving the seat from the lounge position shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 to the third position shown in FIGS. 7 and 8, straps, such as straps 41 and 43 (FIG. 5) may be employed as handholds to raise and pivot the auxiliary seat frame 40 to the position shown in FIG. 3.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14 and 16-18 are allowed.
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 claim 6, 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 “…further comprising hinges, by which the supplemental support is coupled to the main support, and about which the supplemental support rotates…”. The closest prior art is Thomas (US 20070108813 A1). Thomas discloses mechanical linkage 30 and is viewed as a hinge allowing supplemental seat 16 to rotate between the closed and open positions. However, the backrest 14 is not directly coupled to the supplemental seat 16 by the mechanical linkage 30 (See at least Fig. 5B reproduced below, where slides 29 are shown to directly couple the backrest 14 to the supplemental backrest 28. Therefore, the arrangement disclosed is novel in view of the prior art of record.
PNG
media_image3.png
562
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the amendment filed 27 July 2026 places the application in condition for allowance (See at least: Non-Final Rejection mailed 25 March 2026 for detailed Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance).
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 ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights