April 9, 2026
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eysing (U.S. Patent No. 7,648,201 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 8, Eysing teaches a seat assembly, comprising:
a frame 31 comprising a first material that defines a first hardness, the frame including a first side and a second side opposite the first side, a top side, a right side that extends downward from the top side, and a left side that extends downward from the top side;
a fabric component 31 coupled to the first side of the frame; and
a plurality of grooves 51 disposed within the second side of the frame, the plurality of grooves including first grooves along the right side of the frame and second grooves along the left side of the frame; and a plurality of inserts 19,
wherein each insert 20 of a plurality of inserts 20 are disposed within each respective groove 24 in the plurality of grooves 24, and
wherein each insert of the plurality of inserts 24 comprises a second material, the second material defining a second hardness that is less than the first hardness;
wherein the plurality of inserts defines an insert area having a second length that is less than the first length, See column 5, lines 27-32 where it reads “A plurality of spacers 19, which keep the second longitudinal element 17 spaced apart from the first longitudinal element 15 between the connection point 27 and the support point 29, are each joined elastically or pivotably to the first longitudinal element 15 and likewise elastically or pivotably to the second longitudinal element 17.
As for Claim 6, Eysing teaches that the frame further includes a third side and a fourth side each coupled to the first side and the second side, and wherein the plurality of inserts are at least partially visible when viewed from the second side, the third side, and the fourth side (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eysing (U.S. Patent No. 7,320,503 B2).
Eysing does not specify the hardness of the inserts, as defined in Claims 2 and 7. However, such properties are nothing more than a design choice determined by the manufacturer or the needs of the consumer.
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eysing (U.S. Patent No. 7,648,201 B2) in view of Ambasz (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,782 B2)
Eysing does not teach a frame member as defined in claims 3 and 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
258
365
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Ambasz teaches a flexible support wherein a frame defines a linear portion that extends in a substantially parallel direction with respect to a longitudinal axis and a curved portion that extends rearwardly of the linear portion; wherein a third length of the linear portion is greater than a fourth length of the curved portion as defined in claim 11 (see annotated Fig. 1 above). Ambasz also teaches that the flexible portion of the frame is in the curved portion and wherein the plurality of inserts can be disposed within the curved portion of the frame. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the frame, as taught by Eysing, to have a frame defines a linear portion that extends in a substantially parallel direction with respect to a longitudinal axis and a curved portion that extends rearwardly of the linear portion, as taught by Ambasz, sine the shape or type of back support frame again is a design choice determined by the manufacturer or the needs of the consumer. The shape of the backrest is determined on the type or style of the chair and the flexing arrangement disclosed by Eysing is not limited to the type of chair disclosed by Eysing.
As for claim 5, Eysing teaches that each insert of the plurality of inserts is configured to deform in response to applying a load to the first side of the frame such that the curved portion of the frame is configured to flex in a rearward direction.
As for Claim 9, Eysing does not specify the hardness of the inserts, However, such properties are nothing more than a design choice determined by the manufacturer or the needs of the consumer.
As for claim 12, Ambasz teach that the curved portion defines a first radius of curvature in an unloaded state and a second radius of curvature in a loaded state, and wherein the second radius of curvature is greater than the first radius of curvature (while not shown it is well known that a flexing area of a backrest will have a greater curve to it once a load is applied to it to cause it to flex).
As for Claim 13, Eysing teaches that the insert area of the plurality of inserts is located between about 40% and about 90% of the first length of the frame.
As for Claim 14, Eysing teaches that the frame further includes a third side and a fourth side each coupled to the first side and the second side, and wherein the plurality of inserts are at least partially visible when viewed from the second side, the third side, and the fourth side (see Figures 14-15).
As for Claim 15, Eysing teaches that the plurality of grooves includes between one and 100 grooves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights