August 26, 2025
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “lower part” referred to on line 7 of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Perhaps the “lower part” is shown but it has not been labeled or does not have a reference number identifying it in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Applicant uses the word “invention” in the Abstract of the WIPO document, which is improper language for the Abstract. If Applicant amends the Abstract, make sure it is a single paragraph because the original Abstract contained two paragraphs, which is improper. The Abstract should only be a single paragraph, A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-12 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.
In the Claims, Applicant appears to list the parts without providing any interconnection between them. For example, in Claim 1, there is no interconnection between the seat, a backrest, a headrest, a kneeler. This problem occurs in Claims 7-8, 10, and 12. Applicant needs to provide some interconnection between the parts instead of simply listing them.
In claim 12, what does Applicant mean by “rotationally displaceable seat”? Nowhere in the specification is this language included and the seat is not described as “rotationally displaceable”.
The aforementioned problem renders the claim vague and indefinite. Clarification and/correction is required.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
240
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (U.S. Patent No. 5,667,278).
As for Claim 7, Li teaches a dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, the chair comprising:
a seat 20,
a backrest 10,
a kneeler 30,
a backrest support 13 by which the backrest is supported and to which the backrest is pivotally connected by pin 12, and
a backrest spring for pivoting the backrest for maintaining the backrest against a user’s back (see annotated Fig. 5).
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 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent No. 5,667,278) in view of Bujaryn (U.S. Patent No. 5,542,746).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
408
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, the chair comprising:
a seat 20,
a backrest 10,
a kneeler 30,
a movable backrest and support 11 capable of supporting a headrest, the support 11 supporting the backrest and having a lower part, the lower part shaped such that its movement changes the size of the chair simultaneously vertically and horizontally for adjustment to the size of a user of the chair (see Fig. 5) but does not teach a headrest attached to the movable backrest support.
PNG
media_image5.png
314
228
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Bujaryn teaches the concept of providing a headrest 13a on a similar dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, with the headrest being attached to a backrest support to be old. As for claim 10, Bujaryn also teaches that headrest 13a is rotationally connected to a headrest arm around a headrest rotation axis 13b, the headrest arm is rotationally connected to the backrest support 12b around a headrest arm rotation axis 13e, the distance between the headrest rotation axis and the headrest arm rotation axis is greater than 200 mm. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordianry skill in the art to modify the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, as taught by Li, to include a headrst attached to the back rest support, as taught by Bujaryn, since it would provide support to a user of the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, thus providing even greater comfort to a person uisng the chair.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (U.S. Patent No. 5,667,278) in view of Meyers et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0063569 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
274
176
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
274
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Mays teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, the chair comprising:
a rotationally displaceable seat 20,
a backrest 40,
a kneeler 60, and a base but does not teach that the base has five outwardly extending arms and five wheels, each arm having a central portion and an outward end, the wheels being connected to the arms at the outward ends, the wheels having tops, the arms along the central portion being below the tops.
PNG
media_image8.png
156
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Meyers et al. teach the concpet of a base having five outwardly extending arms and five wheels, each arm having a central portion and an outward end, the wheels being connected to the arms at the outward ends, the wheels having tops, the arms along the central portion being below the tops (see Fig. 1 of Meyer et al. above). It would have been obvious and wellwithin the level of ordianry skill in the art to modify the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, as taught by Mays, to include a base having five outwardly extending arms and five wheels, each arm having a central portion and an outward end, the wheels being connected to the arms at the outward ends, the wheels having tops, the arms along the central portion being below the tops, as taught by Meyers et al., since it would advantageously increase the stability of the the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent No. 5,667,278) in view of Bujaryn (U.S. Patent No. 5,542,746), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Stenzel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,857,704 B2).
Li in view of Bujaryn teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the headrest is also slidingly connected to the headrest arm.
PNG
media_image9.png
268
162
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Stenzel et al. teach the concept of a headrest that is both rotationally connected to a headrest arm and that is slidingly connected to a headrest arm. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordianry skill in the art to modify the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling, as taught by Li in view of Bujaryn, to include a headrest that is both rotationally connected to a headrest arm and that is slidingly connected to a headrest arm, as taught by Stenzel et al., since it would provide multiple levels of adjustment to accommodate various users of the dual function chair for sitting and kneeling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
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