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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the maximum declination of the seat pan" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a maximum declination of the seat pan”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu (WO 03017883 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Muramatsu discloses a therapeutic chair (Fig. 1 and Abstract), comprising:
a back support (9 and 10, Fig. 1);
a seat pan (8, Fig. 1); and
a seat pan tilting mechanism (11 and 1, Fig. 1) coupled to the seat pan (11 and 1 are coupled to 8, Fig. 1), the seat pan tilting mechanism configured to decline the seat pan from a standard position (position of 8, Fig. 1) to a selected declined seat pan position (position of 8, Fig. 2);
wherein the seat pan tilting mechanism is configured to decline the seat pan to the selected declined seat pan position independent from a reclining motion of the back support (Figs. 1-2).
While Muramatsu discloses declining the seat pan between the positions of Figs. 1-2 and using a remote control to control the position (Pg. 2 of attached translation, para. 4), Muramatsu does not specifically disclose a plurality of declined positions, wherein each of the plurality of declined positions corresponds to an angle of declination of the seat pan.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the seat pan tilting mechanism and remote control of Muramatsu to select from one of a plurality of declined positions (any plurality of positions of 11 between position of Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each of the plurality of declined positions corresponds to an angle of declination of the seat pan (any declined angles of 8, positions between Figs. 1-2), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to customize the position of the seat pan for differently sized users or different physical user requirements.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, further comprising a base (6, Fig. 1), wherein the back support is connected to the base via a first structure (vertical leg connecting 6 and 9, Fig. 1) and the seat pan is connected to the base via a second structure independent from the first structure (front vertical leg connecting 6 and 8, and 1 and 11, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 2, wherein the seat pan tilting mechanism is a component of the second structure (1 and 11 are a component of the second structure, see Claim 2 rejection above and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, wherein the seat pan tilting mechanism comprises a pivot joint (11 at top of 1, Fig. 2) and a depressible piston (1, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, wherein the seat pan tilting mechanism is configured to lower a rear portion of the seat pan relative to a front portion of the seat pan (Fig. 2), the rear portion of the seat pan disposed proximal to the back support and the front portion of the seat pan disposed distal from the back support (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, wherein the plurality of declined positions are configured such that each respective declined position targets a respective target region of a spine of the occupant for decompression (Muramatsu is clearly capable of this function, see Abstract and Pg. 2 of attached translation, 4th para).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 6, wherein the respective target region of the human spine is selected from the group consisting of: a lumbar region, a thoracic region (Pg. 2 of attached translation, 4th para. “treat and prevent back pain, stiff shoulders, bending back…etc”), and a cervical region.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, wherein each respective declined position of the plurality of declined positions is further configured to target one or more respective vertebrae for spinal decompression (examiner notes Muramatsu is clearly capable of this function, see Pg. 2 of attached translation,. 4th para. “suppress the distortion of the spine and the compression of the cartilage”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, further comprising a traction assembly configured to support a thorax of the occupant when the seat pan is declined position (4, Fig. 2 and Pg. 2 of attached translation, 4th para.).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Muramatsu teaches the therapeutic chair of claim 1, wherein the standard position corresponds to a minimum declination of the seat pan (position of Fig. 1), and wherein the maximum declination of the seat pan is an angle (position of Fig. 2), wherein the angle is measured between a first direction extending from a rear of the seat pan to a front of the seat pan and a horizontal direction that extends parallel to a floor on which the chair is configured to sit (Fig. 2).
Modified Muramatsu is silent about the angle being in a range of 45° to 60°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the angle in a range of 45° to 60°, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate different size users or physical requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tehrani (US 20180192775 A1) teaches a cantilever seat configured to decline the seat pan.
Katoh et al. (US 20160159254 A1) teaches a seat pan pivotally moveable independently from the back support.
Meister et al. (US 20150108804 A1) teaches an independently articulating seat pan.
Delmestri et al. (US 7722119 B1) teaches a declining seat pan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642