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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
This application claims the benefit of previously filed US Provisional 63/400,285, filed on 08/23/2022, and US Provisional 63/448,808, filed on 02/28/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs. 1A-4 and 8A-9C) in the reply filed on 07/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are indicated as withdrawn by applicant in the reply filed 07/14/2025. However, the Office notes Species A reads on claims 14-19, which were indicated as being generic to each of the species listed in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on 04/15/2025. Therefore, claims 14-19 are considered pending and have been examined as indicated below.
Claim 20 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim 20 is withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2023, 04/18/2024, 11/08/2024, and 07/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0025], line 9, “pin 124” should read ---pin 126---
Par. [0035], line 2, “an adjustment ladder 506” should read ---an adjustment ladder 606---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11-13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “comprising:” at the start of line 2 should be moved to the end of line 1
Claim 11, line 1, “wherein adjustment pin” should read ---wherein the adjustment pin---
Claim 12, “10, wherein:” at the start of line 2 should be moved to the end of line 1
Claim 13, “comprising:” at the start of line 2 should be moved to the end of line 1
Claim 19, “bench comprising:” at the start of line 2 should be moved to the end of line 1
Claim 19, “a pair of housings secured to the rear foot;” in line 5 should be moved to a subsequent line to separate the limitations from one another
Claim 19, line “a back cushion coupled to the back” in line 8 should be moved to the start of line 9, such that line 9 reads ---a back cushion coupled to the back support, and---
Claim 19, line 13, “the stored positon” should read ---a stored position---
Claim 19, line 14, “the surface” should read ---a surface---
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.
Claims 16-18 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the stand” and “the plurality of standing surfaces” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is unclear if claim 16 is intended to be dependent on claim 15 instead of claim 4, as claim 15 includes the stand and introduces the limitation of a plurality of standing surfaces. For examination purposes to provide proper antecedent basis to the limitations, claim 16 has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the stand” in line 1 and “the second end of the back support” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is unclear if claim 17 is intended to be dependent on one of claims 13-16 instead of claim 1, as claim 13 includes the limitations of a stand and a back support. For examination purposes to provide proper antecedent basis, claim 17 has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 13.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the stand” in line 1, “the resting surface” in line 2, and “the stand to the second end of the back support” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is unclear if claim 18 is intended to be dependent on one of claims 13-17, which includes limitations directed to the stand, the resting surface, and the back support. For examination purposes to provide proper antecedent basis to the limitations, claim 18 has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 17.
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 13-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL 1 (GETRX’D, “FIDAB-2 ADJUSTABLE BENCH”, figures presented below reproduced from webpage).
Regarding independent claim 13, NPL 1 discloses an adjustable bench (“FIDAB-2 Adjustable Bench”, see Information section) comprising:
a frame (see Figure 1 – Annotated below);
a hinge coupled to the frame (hinge allowing seat and back adjustability, see Figure 1 – Annotated below);
a back support pivotably coupled to the hinge at a first end of the back support (see Figure 2 - Annotated below);
a stand (upright storage support) coupled to a second end of the back support, wherein the stand comprises a resting surface (see Figure 2 – Annotated and Figure 4 - Annotated below); and
a back cushion coupled to the back support (“high-density back and seat pads”), wherein a terminal end of the back cushion extends a first distance from the hinge and wherein the resting surface extends a second distance from the hinge, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see Figure 4 - Annotated below, resting surface of stand extends further away from hinge than terminal end of back cushion).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
706
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
656
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
875
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 – Annotated
Regarding claim 14, NPL 1 further discloses wherein the stand at least partially surrounds the terminal end of the back cushion (see Figure 2 – Annotated and Figure 4 – Annotated above; upright storage support at least partially surrounds terminal end of the back cushion in the same manner as disclosed by applicant).
Regarding claim 15, NPL 1 further discloses a plurality of standing surfaces secured to the frame, wherein the plurality of standing surfaces are positioned at an end of the frame adjacent the terminal end of the back cushion and the stand (see Figure 5 – Annotated below; see Figure 3 above illustrating adjustable bench in vertical storage position supported by resting surface of stand/upright storage support and the standing surfaces).
PNG
media_image5.png
706
812
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 - Annotated
Regarding claim 16, interpreted as being dependent on claim 15 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), NPL 1 further discloses wherein when the bench is disposed substantially vertically, the bench rests on the stand and the plurality of standing surfaces (see Figure 4 above illustrating adjustable bench in vertical storage position supported by resting surface of stand/upright storage support and the standing surfaces).
Regarding independent claim 19, NPL 1 discloses an adjustable bench (“FIDAB-2 Adjustable Bench”, see Information section) comprising:
a frame (see Figure 1 – Annotated above);
a front foot secured to the frame (see front foot positioned underneath adjustable seat at front of frame in Figure 1 – Annotated above);
a rear foot secured to the frame at an end of the frame opposite the front foot (see rear foot positioned underneath adjustable back support at rear of frame in Figure 1 – Annotated above);
a pair of housings secured to the rear foot (housings surrounding wheels on rear foot, see Figure 5 – Annotated illustrating standing surfaces of housings);
a back support pivotably coupled to the frame at a first end of the back support (see Figure 2 – Annotated above);
a stand (upright storage support) coupled to a second end of the back support (see Figure 2 – Annotated and Figure 4 - Annotated above); and
a back cushion coupled to the back support (“high-density back and seat pads”), and
wherein the adjustable bench is positionable in a use position, wherein when in the use position, the adjustable bench rests on a surface on the front foot and the rear foot (use position shown in Figure 1 – Annotated above), and
wherein the adjustable bench is positionable in the stored positon, wherein when in the stored position, the adjustable bench rests on the surface on the pair of housings and the stand (vertical storage position shown in Figure 3 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL 1 (GETRX’D, “FIDAB-2 ADJUSTABLE BENCH”, figures presented below reproduced from webpage).
Regarding claim 17, interpreted as being dependent on claim 13 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), NPL 1 does not teach wherein the stand (upright storage support) is removably coupled to the second end of the back support (see attachment of upright storage support to back support in Figure 4 – Annotated above). However, it has been held in In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) that if it is desirable to make a part removable that is not manually removable, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make that part removable. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stand of NPL 1 to be removably coupled to the back support to allow a user to selectively remove the stand as desired for repair or replacement, thereby decreasing the costs associated with replacing the adjustable bench as a whole should the stand be damaged.
Regarding claim 18, interpreted as being dependent on claim 17 (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), NPL 1 teaches wherein the stand (upright storage support) further comprises: a base comprising the resting surface (see Figure 6 – Annotated below); and a pair of tines (see Figure 6 – Annotated below), wherein each of the pair of tines are disposed substantially orthogonally to the base (see exploded Figure 6 – Annotated below). NPL 1 illustrates the pair of tines secured to the second end of the back support by bolts or screws, indicating each tine inherently has an opening for receiving the bolt or screw (see Figure 6 – Annotated below), but does not teach necessarily the bolt or screw being a removable securing element for removably coupling the stand to the second end of the back support.
PNG
media_image6.png
252
285
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 – Annotated
However, it has been held in In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) that if it is desirable to make a part removable that is not manually removable, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make that part removable. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bolts or screws securing the pair of tines of the stand to the back support of NPL 1 to be removable securing elements for removably coupling the stand to the back support to allow a user to selectively remove the stand as desired for repair or replacement, thereby decreasing the costs associated with replacing the adjustable bench as a whole should the stand be damaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest an adjustable bench in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a seat support that is pivotally coupled to the bench frame at a pivot, and an adjustment mechanism comprising an adjustment frame having a plurality of openings and coupled to the seat support, a seat plate coupled to a seat cushion, an adjustment pin coupled to the seat plate and selectively engageable with the plurality of openings, a bearing coupled to the seat plate, and a rail coupled to the adjustment frame, wherein the bearing is slidably engaged with the rail.
The closest prior art of record to Specht et al. (US 10,589,144) teaches an adjustable bench (100) comprising a seat support (130) comprising a plurality of openings therein (142) and pivotally coupled to a bench frame (102) at a pivot (108), and an adjustment mechanism comprising a seat plate (mounting bracket 144) coupled to a seat cushion (132), an adjustment pin coupled to the seat plate (slide detent 146) and selectively engageable with the plurality of openings (col. 3 lines 54-58, “Mounting bracket 144 slidably connects to seat support frame 130 and may be moved between a plurality of positions therealong by engagement and disengagement of slide detent 146 with the plurality of position apertures 142”). Specht et al. does not teach an adjustment frame having the plurality of openings and coupled to the seat support, a bearing coupled to the seat plate, or a rail coupled to the adjustment frame, wherein the bearing is slidably engaged with the rail. There is no motivation in the art to modify the adjustment mechanism of Specht et al. to include the required structural and functional limitations of the instant claims absent improper hindsight.
Additional prior art to Green (US 4,653,751) and Desiderio (US 4,936,572) each teach an adjustable bench comprising a seat support pivotally coupled to a bench frame and adjustable along the bench frame by an adjustment mechanism, but neither Green nor Desiderio alone or in combination teach an adjustment mechanism comprising the required structural and functional limitations of the instant claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baker et al. (US 11,413,492) teaches an adjustable bench configured to be positioned in a vertical storage position using standing surfaces of wheel housings (352) and a support pad (192) located on a front foot (182) and a movable member (104), respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784