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 Invention I in the reply filed on 3 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not distinct combination/subcombination as presented in the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because the combination does not require all the particulars of the subcombination and the subcombination has separate utility as set forth previously. That is, the combination does not require an adjuster pivotably connectable to a seat of a seat assembly, while the subcombination would have separate utility as an independent adjuster/armrest assembly. Note that while the subcombination may be claimed as functionally associated with a seat, this is merely functional and the seat need not be the seat as recited in the combination. Applicant’s assertion that the armrest adjuster of the combination substantially overlaps with that of the subcombination is appreciated, but this does not mean that different fields of search would not be necessary for the two inventions or that prior art applicable to one would necessarily be applicable to both.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3 August 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stasik (US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0365038).
Regarding claim 1, Stasik discloses an adjustable armrest assembly, comprising: an armrest mount (including 7a and/or 7g); an armrest (6 including at least 7b) adjustably connected to the armrest mount (6b/7b is slidable within 7a and pivotable relative to 7g); and an armrest adjuster (including 7c, 7d, etc.) pivotably connected to the armrest and to the armrest mount(at least via 8); wherein the armrest adjuster is pivotably connectable to a seat of a seat assembly (at 11); and wherein the armrest adjuster adjusts the armrest relative to the armrest mount to: an extended position when said seat is adjusted to a first seat position; and a retracted position when said seat is adjusted to a second seat position (as in Figures 1 and 3, respectively for instance; note that the adjuster would be capable of further moving the armrest via the connection at 7a-7b).
Regarding claim 2, Stasik further discloses said first seat position is a design position; and said second seat position is a zero-gravity position (the positions would meet these limitations at least based on the particular recline adjustment as well as size and position of a user).
Regarding claim 3, Stasik further discloses the armrest adjuster includes a plurality of links pivotably connected to one another (7c, 7d, etc. form such an arrangement).
Regarding claim 4, Stasik further discloses the plurality of links includes a pivot link, a drive link, and a follow link (7d, 7e/7f, and 7c, respectively for instance).
Regarding claim 8, Stasik further discloses the armrest is slidably connected to the armrest mount (at least via the 7a-7b connection).
Regarding claim 9, Stasik further discloses the armrest mount includes at least one connector (of 7a for instance); and the armrest includes a slider (of 7b for instance) engaged with the connector and slidably connects the armrest and the armrest mount.
Regarding claim 10, Stasik further discloses the at least one connector includes a groove (at a side of the C profile) and a guide surface defining the groove; and the slider includes a projection (at an edge) disposed in the groove of the at least one connector.
Regarding claim 11, Stasik further discloses the armrest includes an armrest frame (main structure of 6 for instance); the armrest frame includes an arm support body (upper portion of 6); and an orientation of the arm support body is maintained as the armrest is adjusted from the extended position to the retracted position and is adjusted from the retracted position to the extended position (this is the general manner of operation).
Regarding claim 12, Stasik further discloses the arm support body is disposed farther from the armrest mount when the armrest is disposed in the extended position than when the armrest is disposed in the retracted position (at least in part).
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) 5-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stasik.
Regarding claims 5-7, Stasik discloses an assembly as explained above including the links pivotably connected to the mount, seat, and one another about various axes as well as the armrest adjuster disposed in a first adjuster position when said seat is disposed in said first seat position and the armrest adjuster disposed in a second adjuster position when said seat is disposed in said second seat position, but may not clearly disclose the arrangement and positions of axes as claimed. Changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components require only routine skill in the art however, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve fit, operation, and support for various users.
Regarding claim 13, Stasik discloses an assembly as explained above including the armrest includes an armrest frame (as above); the armrest mount includes a projection (of 7a) defining an interior space (in the C profile); and when the armrest is disposed in the retracted position, the armrest frame is disposed at least partially in the interior space (see figures), but does not disclose the reverse as claimed (i.e. the mount disposed in a space of the frame). However, reversal of components requires only routine skill in the art, and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed based on normal variation to improve manufacture, operation, or support for various users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 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