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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both Species I and II were previously examined and thus further examination would not create a burden. This is not found persuasive because while both Species were originally disclosed, claims were drawn to only one species (Species II). Accordingly, only one species was previously examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 June 2026.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 12-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0258840).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper discloses an inflatable recliner (see Figures 5), comprising: a backrest portion (at 6500); a buttock-and-leg support portion (at least a portion of 4000 for instance) connected to the backrest portion; wherein the buttock-and-leg support portion is extended backward at opposite lateral sides of the backrest portion and beyond a vertical plane defined by a junction between the backrest portion and the buttock-and-leg support portion (see figures showing 4000 extending on opposite lateral sides backward as claimed), the extended portions defining rearward ground-contact regions positioned rearward of the junction and configured to contact a supporting surface to resist rearward tipping of the inflatable recliner (it would function in this manner).
Regarding claim 13, Cooper further discloses the backrest portion is adjustable to slope with respect to the buttock-and-leg support by virtue of a concave space formed between the backrest portion and the buttock-and-leg support portion (the backrest can adjust slope at the connection, which is described as a rail and track, which would necessarily include a concave space e.g. in the track for receiving the rail; see Figure 6 of US 2022/0242530 incorporated by reference in Cooper for describing, inter alia, this arrangement).
Regarding claim 14, Cooper further discloses the concave space is a groove extending in a traverse direction of the inflatable recliner (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 15, Cooper further discloses a tensioning element (6540) which is connected to the buttock-and-leg support portion and the backrest portion to keep the backrest portion sloped with respect to the buttock-and-leg support portion at an angle.
Regarding claim 20, Cooper further discloses two tensioning elements (6540), wherein each of the tensioning elements is connected to the buttock-and-leg support portion and the backrest portion to keep the backrest portion sloped with respect to the buttock-and-leg support portion at an angle.
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) 16, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper. Cooper discloses a recliner as explained above including each of tensioning elements adjusted so as to raise or lower the backrest portion (see at least paragraph 58) and having parts generally connected as claimed but may not disclose the particular arrangement or associated buckles. Cooper discloses strap and buckle arrangements elsewhere (see at least paragraph 42), and, as duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the buckle strap and arrangements as claimed based on normal variation to improve user comfort and convenience.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Shibata et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0354273). Cooper discloses a recliner as explained above but does not disclose a cord and reel device. Such are well-known as shown by Shibata who discloses a related device including a tensioning element being a cord to be rolled by a reel device (at 40, 50, 80), wherein: the reel device comprises a rotary disk and a pawl disk; the rotary disk comprises teeth; the pawl disk comprises a pawl engaged with the teeth; the teeth comprise gently sloped edges, and steeply sloped edges disposed opposite to the gently sloped edges; the steeply sloped edges are configured to stop the rotary disk from rotating in a first direction in a way that the pawl catches against the steeply sloped edges; the pawl slides over the gently sloped edges when the rotary disk is rotated in a second direction opposite to the first direction (this is the general arrangement; see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a reel device as taught by Shibata in Cooper’s recliner because this could improve user security, comfort, and convenience.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/739476 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide the components arranged as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Cooper does not disclose the buttock-and-leg support portion extended backward at opposite lateral sides and that the double patenting rejection is not valid because the amended claims are not obvious over the reference document. Regarding the disclosure of Cooper, it is maintained that Cooper discloses backward extension as claimed. While Applicant describes Cooper’s backward extension at “the bottom side of the backrest,” this does not preclude backward extension at opposite lateral sides, which can be seen in Figure 5C for instance. Regarding the double patenting rejection, it is noted that Applicant has not specifically explained how the claims are non-obvious. It is accordingly maintained that the claims would have been obvious as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights