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 .
The amendment filed on 10/15/2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed on 07/15/2025 has been considered. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending. Claim(s) 9-16 has/have been added. Claim(s) 9-16 has/have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-8 has/have been examined in this action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9-16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Invention of Claims 1-8 and the invention of claims 9-16 are related as product (Claims 1-8) and process of use (Claims 9-16). The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the back support device of originally filed claim 1 can be used with a chair which does not recline and can support a user in the chair without movement.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-16 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,633,906 to Franz.
Regarding claim 1, Franz discloses a back support device, the back support device comprising: an elongated body (1 and 1); an attachment portion (4 and 4) coupled to the elongated body and configured to attach the back support device to a chair (2); a first strap (6) attached to the elongated body, the first strap configured to secure around a user under the user’s arms (Fig.1); and a second strap (7) attached to the elongated body, the second strap configured to secure around the user’s torso (Fig.1).
The device of Franz is capable of being used on the back of a reclining chair.
The device of Franz is attached to a seat back of a chair; therefore the device of Franz is capable of being attached to a seat back of a reclining chair.
In use on a reclining chair, the device will be secured to the seat back and the device will move with the seat back while the weight of the user will cause the user to remain in the seat bottom, naturally the first or second strap which secure the user to the device will lift the user while the bodyweight of the user provides a counterforce and places the lumbar vertebrae in traction.
All of the structure of the device is taught by Franz and therefore the device of Franz is capable of being used as recited.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first and second straps include respective first and second coupling mechanisms (hinges 8) configured to secure the user to the elongated body.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the attachment portion is shaped to fit over a top of the reclining chair (Fig.1) and to hook over a headrest of the reclining chair (the hooks of Franz are capable of being fit of a seat back and headrest of a reclining chair.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the elongated member has an approximately rectangular shape (elongated members held together by the straps form a rectangular outline (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, wherein at least one of the first strap and the second strap are removably attached to the elongated member (bolts 11, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the attachment portion comprises a first attachment portion (4) and a second attachment portion (other 4) configured to attach to a top of a back of the reclining chair (capable of being secured to a reclining chair).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,205,670 to Owens.
Regarding claim 1, Owens discloses a back support device, the back support device comprising: an elongated body (1, 1); an attachment portion (top and bottoms of 1, 1 wrapped around the seat) coupled to the elongated body and configured to attach the back support device to a chai (31)r; a first strap (19) attached to the elongated body, the first strap configured to secure around a user under the user’s arms (Fig.1); and a second strap (17) attached to the elongated body, the second strap configured to secure around the user’s torso (Fig.1).
The device of Owens is capable of being used on the back of a reclining chair.
The device of Owens is attached to a seat back of a chair; therefore the device of Owens is capable of being attached to a seat back of a reclining chair.
In use on a reclining chair, the device will be secured to the seat back and the device will move with the seat back while the weight of the user will cause the user to remain in the seat bottom, naturally the first or second strap which secure the user to the device will lift the user while the bodyweight of the user provides a counterforce and places the lumbar vertebrae in traction.
All of the structure of the device is taught by Owens and therefore the device of Owens is capable of being used as recited.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first and second straps include respective first and second coupling mechanisms (21, 23) configured to secure the user to the elongated body.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the attachment portion is shaped to fit over a top of the chair (tops of 1 and 1; the straps of Owens are capable of being fit of a seat back and headrest of a reclining chair).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the elongated member has an approximately rectangular shape (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, wherein at least one of the first strap and the second strap are removably attached to the elongated member (can be pulled through loops 3).
Regarding claim 7, wherein at least one of the first strap and the second strap are adjustable relative to the elongated member (able to slide the straps within the loops 3).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the attachment portion comprises a first attachment portion (1) and a second attachment portion (other 1) configured to attach to a top of a back of the reclining chair (Fig.1; capable of being installed on a reclining chair).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,633,906 to Franz in view of US 2020/0405058 A1 to Bergeron et al.
Regarding claim 4, Franz does not disclose a headrest coupled to the elongated body or the attachment portion.
Bergeron et al. discloses providing a back support device for a reclining chair having a headrest (108) coupled to the elongated body (Fig.1A and 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a headrest to the device of Franz so to both provide stability to the head of the user and to enhance the comfort of the user while using the back support device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,205,670 to Owens in view of US 2020/0405058 A1 to Bergeron et al.
Regarding claim 4, Owens does not disclose a headrest coupled to the elongated body or the attachment portion.
Bergeron et al. discloses providing a back support device for a reclining chair having a headrest (108) coupled to the elongated body (Fig.1A and 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a headrest to the device of Owens so to both provide stability to the head of the user and to enhance the comfort of the user while using the back support device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments are directed to the newly added claim limitations. The newly added claim limitations are directed to the intended use and function of the back support device. Although Franz and Owens do not specifically disclose the back support device used with a reclining chair, both the device of Franz and the device of Owens are capable of meeting the limitations of the claims. The seat support devices are secured to the seatback, therefore if the seat back were reclined, the device would translate upward relative to the user who is sitting in the seat portion of the chair. Further, if the straps are secured to the user’s torso, the straps will ensure that the reclining position puts an upward force on the user while the weight of the user will provide a downward force, thereby providing traction to the spine. The intended use provided in the claim occurs naturally based on the structure of the device and the orientation of the device relative to the user in a reclining chair. As filed, the claims do not require a reclining chair nor do they require anything structurally different than provided by Franz and Owens.
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 RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635