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 .
This office action is a second Non-Final Rejection in response to applicant’s amendments filed 01/22/2026 in view of new grounds of rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and a corrected interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/29/2025.
The replacement drawings filed 01/22/2026 would overcome the objections previously applied in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/29/2025, however the amendments are not entered for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer has not overcome the statutory double patenting rejections previously applied in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/29/2025. See response to arguments below.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and considered below.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 01/22/2026 are objected to and have not been entered because of the following informalities:
The replacement drawings appear blurry and the reference characters are difficult to read.
The “[No Title]” box in Fig. 3 should be deleted.
The “[No Title]” box in Fig. 4 should be deleted.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17, “the slide structure” should read ---the inclined slide structure--- for consistency of claim language.
Claim 1, lines 19-20, “the slide structure” should read ---the inclined slide structure--- for consistency of claim language.
Claim 1, line 27, “the slide structure” should read ---the inclined slide structure--- for consistency of claim language.
Claim 10, line 2, “the slide structure” should read ---the inclined slide structure ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a pivot mechanism (claim 1); an adjustable incline mechanism (claim 2); an incline adjustment mechanism (claim 6).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The pivot mechanism, with generic placeholder “mechanism” combined with functional language “configured to allow pivoting of the adjustable backrest and pivoting, lockable seat” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structures of “a plurality of pivots (e.g., wherein the adjustable backrest 220 is attached to a first pivot and the pivoting, lockable seat 230 is attached to a second pivot)” as defined in paragraph [0043].
The adjustable incline mechanism, with generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “which allows the incline of the inclined slide structure to be changed” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of “a pair of telescoping arms with pins for locking the telescoping arms to a particular length, but other mechanisms for adjusting the incline could be used” as defined in paragraph [0041] and illustrated in Fig. 1.
The incline adjustment mechanism, with generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “for changing an angle of the footpad” and not modified by sufficient structure, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a telescoping arm as illustrated in Fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “the slide mechanism” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited inclined slide structure or a materially different and new slide mechanism. Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the inclined slide structure has a plurality of slide rails.” However, claim 1 previously recites “an inclined slide structure comprising a slide rail” in line 2. It is unclear if the plurality of slide rails of claim 3 includes the previously claimed slide rail of claim 1, or if the plurality of slide rails of claim 3 is materially different from the previously claimed slide rail of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, in view of the written description and figures, the Office suggests amending “a slide rail” of claim 1 to read similar to ---at least one slide rail--- and further amending the limitation of claim 3 to read similar to ---wherein the at least one slide rail of the inclined slide structure comprises a plurality of slide rails---. Should applicant amend the limitation “a slide rail” of claim 1 to read similar to ---at least one slide rail---, the Office notes the same changes should be made such that each instance of “the slide rail” reads similar to ---the at least one slide rail--- throughout the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the carriage has a plurality of bearings” in line 1. However, claim 1 previously recites “a carriage comprising . . . one or more bearings” in line 9. It is unclear if the plurality of bearings of claim 9 includes the previously claimed one or more bearings of claim 1, or if the plurality of bearings of claim 9 is materially different from the previously claimed one or more bearings of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, in view of the written description and figures, the Office suggests amending the limitation of claim 9 to read similar to ---wherein the one or more bearings of the carriage comprises a plurality of bearings---.
Claim 9 recites “the underside of the slide rail” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the underside” in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the top side of the slide rail” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the top side” in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the slide structure has a plurality of rails” in line 2. However, claim 1 previously recites “an inclined slide structure comprising a slide rail” in line 2. It is unclear if the plurality of rails of claim 10 includes the previously claimed slide rail of claim 1, or if the plurality of rails of claim 10 is materially different from the previously claimed slide rail of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, in view of the written description and figures, the Office suggests amending “a slide rail” of claim 1 to read similar to ---at least one slide rail--- and further amending the limitation of claim 10 to read similar to ---wherein the at least one slide rail of the inclined slide structure comprises a plurality of slide rails---. Should applicant amend the limitation “a slide rail” of claim 1 to read similar to ---at least one slide rail---, the Office notes the same changes should be made such that each instance of “the slide rail” reads similar to ---the at least one slide rail--- throughout the claims. Additionally, should applicant amend the limitation of claim 10 as suggested above, the limitation of “each of the plurality of rails” in lines 4-5 and in lines 6-7 of claim 10 should be similarly amended to ---each of the plurality of slide rails---.
Claim 10 recites “the carriage has plurality of bearings” in line 3. However, claim 1 previously recites “a carriage comprising . . . one or more bearings” in line 9. It is unclear if the plurality of bearings of claim 10 includes the previously claimed one or more bearings of claim 1, or if the plurality of bearings of claim 10 is materially different from the previously claimed one or more bearings of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, in view of the written description and figures, the Office suggests amending the limitation of claim 10 to read similar to ---wherein the one or more bearings of the carriage comprises a plurality of bearings---.
Claim 10 recites “the underside of each of the plurality of rails” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the underside” in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the top side of each of the plurality of rails” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the top side” in the claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/428,646 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12, applicant argues the instant independent claim 1 differs in scope from independent claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/428,646 (reference application) by stating the instant independent claim 1 omits the requirement for a hip attachment device. However, the Office notes a hip attachment device is recited in instant independent claim 1 line 22. Therefore, the instant claims remain provisionally rejected under 35 U.SC. 101 statutory double patenting as claiming the same invention as the claims of the reference application.
The Office notes applicant’s terminal disclaimer would function to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection with respect to the reference application should applicant amend the scope of instant claim 1 in accordance with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784