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 .
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 and 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 claim 10 the phrase “said knee pad panel is positioned between said support leg structures and adjacent said knee pad panel”, renders the claim unclear and confusing as to how the knee pad panel is adjacent the knee pad panel. Applicant must clarify. In claim 12, the phrase “said second storage sections” lacks antecedent basis.
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) 1-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massman (2023/0397736) in view of Baranowski (DE 4304757 A1). Massman shows the use of a portable prayer kneeler (50) comprising: a knee rest portion (62,63) comprising a pair of base leg structures, each being adjustable in length (see para[0104]) and having a first end and a second end, and a knee pad panel (82) attached to said second ends of the base leg structures; and an arm rest portion comprising a pair of support leg structures (53,54), having a first end and a second end, and an elbow pad panel (59) attached to the second ends of the support leg structures, wherein the first ends of said support leg structures are attached one each to of the first ends of the base leg structures (Fig. 1). Regarding claims 2-3, each of the base leg structures comprises base leg telescoping sections (see para[104]) and base leg locking arrangements configured to releasably lock the base leg telescoping sections in an extended position (see para[0108]). Regarding claim 4, Massman shows the knee pad panel can comprise a knee cushion and a cross piece (Fig. 5). Massman shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the arm rest portion being adjustable. Baranowski teaches the use of a support that has an adjustable arm rest portion (201,202, 206) with an elbow pad panel (Fig. 1) comprising an elbow cushion (209) and crosspiece attached thereto. Baranowski shows the arm rest portion comprising support leg structures (201,202,206) that have telescoping section (206) and locking arrangements (208) to releasably lock the support leg telescoping structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the kneeler of Massman with an adjustable arm rest portion, as taught by Baranowski in order to accommodate users of different sizes and heights. Regarding claims 9-13, Massman in view of Baranowski teaches that the support leg structures can be fully collapsed telescopically forming a first storage section and the and that the base leg structures can be collapsed telescopically to form a second storage. In addition Massman in view of Baranowski teaches the use of a transversely disposed reinforcement piece attached to the second storage sections (see Figs. 1-5 of Massman).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
April 4, 2026