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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-6, 9-13,15 and 17-20 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Churchill (2162060). Churchill teaches a seating group comprising a first seat and a second seat (which is evident, at least implicitly from Figure 1 by the first seat partially shown therein). Each seat would be adjustable in seat depth and lumbar support (Figs. 3-4), as each seat comprises a seat part (34) and a backrest part (32), wherein the first seat and the second seat are each designed and intended for simultaneous adjustment of seat depth and lumbar support, wherein the seating group is designed such that the first seat and the second seat are independently adjustable in their respective seat depth and lumbar support (see Figures 3-4). Churchill shows a first seat part frame (15,16) and a first backrest frame (26,27) are connected to a first supporting element (8,14) such that the first seat part frame and the first backrest frame are simultaneously displaceable in relation to the first supporting element, wherein a second seat part frame (15,16) and a second backrest frame (26,27) are connected to a second supporting element (8,14) in such a way that the second seat part frame and the second backrest frame are simultaneously displaceable in relation to the second supporting element, and wherein the first supporting element and the second supporting element are rigidly connected to each other so that the first supporting element and the second supporting element form a common rigid seat shell (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, the first seat comprises the first seat frame and the first backrest frame are rotatably connected to a first connecting frame (24) such that the first connecting frame is rotatably connected to the backrest frame via a first rotation axis (30) and the first connecting frame is rotatably connected to the seat frame about a second rotation axis (20) while and the second backrest frame is rotatably connected to a second connecting frame (24) about a third rotation axis and the second seat frame is rotatably connected to the second connecting frame about a fourth rotation axis Regarding claim 4, Churchill shows that the seat frame and the backrest frame are translationally displaceable (as shown in Figs. 3-4). Regarding claims 5-6 and 12-14, a first adjusting element (36) is provided to displace the first seat part and inherently a second adjusting element (36) is provided to displace the second seat part both being fixed to the respective first and second seat part. Regarding claims 9-10,15 and 17-20 the angle between the seat frame and the backrest frame are fixed within the seat part (once locked in place) and the seat frame and backrest frame are variable with respect to each other within the seat part (upon the backrest frame and seat part frame being displaced).
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) 7-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill in view of Wang et al. (10,007,478). Churchill shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the use of a single control unit for adjusting the first and second adjusting element independently of one another. Wang et al. teaches the use of a single control unit (24) wherein the control unit is designed and configured to control the adjustment elements independently of one another, and the control unit is arranged below a first seat frame (Fig. 1) and below a second seat frame (as seen in Fig. 5), as well as between the first adjustment element (18) and the second adjustment element (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seating group of Churchill with the control unit as taught by Wang et al in order to reduce the need for complex physical buttons and allow for touchscreen and/or hands free adjustment to be employed for use with the single control unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference Nos. 6,742,840 and 2005/0151405 show features of the claimed invention.
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 ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights