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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
As discussed in the previous Office Action, in Figures 1A and 1B, reference characters 150 should be 140 (i.e., there are two remaining reference characters 150 in each of Figures 1A and 1B in the amended drawings filed 8/30/25 which should be 140).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 2 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Lindo et al. (US 2013/0313212, herein after Lindo).
In regard to claim 1, the Dawson reference discloses an adjustable shower seat and shelfing unit comprising:
an adjustable pole 14, 16; and
a bottom shelf 50 disposed near a bottom portion of the adjustable pole.
Although the Dawson device does not include a top shelf near the top portion of the adjustable pole wherein the top shelf comprises a plurality of top shelf slits at a base portion thereof to allow water to drain therethrough, attention is directed to the Lindo reference, which discloses another “shower caddy” type device wherein shelves 14 having shelf slits therein to allow water to drain from the shelves (see paragraph 0026) are telescopically mounted to a pole in order to enable user to conveniently store items which may be needed in shower. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Dawson device can include such a shelf thereon positioned above the armrest assembly 26 in order to enable a user to conveniently store items which may be needed in shower.
In regard to claim 2, the adjustable pole comprises a bottom pole section 16 to contact a floor and a top pole section 14 to slide over the bottom pole section to allow a length of the adjustable pole to be adjusted. Although the top pole slides over the bottom pole and not within the bottom pole, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the top pole can be designed to slide within the bottom pole wherein such a modification would amount to the mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device, which has been held to be obvious. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
In regard to claim 5, both the shelf in the Lindo device and the bottom shelf In the Dawson device are disclosed as being movable up and down the length of the pole.
In regard to claim 6, the bottom shelf has a size that is large enough for a user to sit upon.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Lindo, as discussed above, and further in view of Agee (U.S. Patent 2,245,951) and Nera et al. (US 2017/0347841, hereinafter Nera).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, although the Dawson device does not disclose a plurality of pivoting, telescoping legs supporting the bottom shelf, attention is directed to the Agee reference, which discloses another shower seat pivotally attached to the wall of a shower (as is the seat 50 in the Dawson device, see column 3, lines 4-6) wherein a pivoting leg 20 is employed to better support the seat when in a user position and to enable the leg, when the seat is pivoted to a stored position, to be pivoted from a orthogonal angle with respect to the seat to a position parallel to the seat and thereby out of the way of the shower user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the seat in the Dawson device can include a such a pivoting leg in order to better support the seat when in the user position and to be pivoted against the seat and out of the way when in a stored position.
Further, although the Agee device does not disclose the user of a plurality of legs, as claimed, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the device can include a plurality of legs wherein such a modification would amount to the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device, which has been held to be obvious. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193, USPQ 8. Further, although leg in the Agee device is not discloses as being telescoping, attention is directed to the Nera reference, which disclose another shower seat wherein the legs are telescoping in order to enable the height of the seat to be adjusted. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the legs on the modified Dawson device can be telescoping in order to enable the seat, which can be adjusted along the length of the pole, to be supported by the legs regardless of the height of the seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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
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 DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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 Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
9/13/25
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754