October 13, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/28/2026. These drawings are approved.
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.
Claims 94-99 and 104-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BALLENDAT et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,1789,72 B2) in view of Behar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,926,016 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 94 and 104, BALLENDAT et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a backrest comprising:
a frame comprising a pair of uprights 241, 241;
a base comprising a lateral support 238 extending between and fixedly coupled to the pair of uprights 241, 241 and defining a laterally extending axis wherein the lateral support 238,239 is twistable between at least first and second configurations (see paragraph [0094] where it reads “A transverse strut 238 of the seat inclination mechanism 234 forms torsion bar springs 239. In particular, an essentially frame-shaped backrest support 240 of the seat backrest 236, together with the basic support 237 and the torsion bar springs 239, is formed integrally, in particular in one piece, from plastic.” but does not teach the lumbar support, a body support member extending between and connected to the uprights and comprising a front body support surface, and that the lumbar support is positioned rearwardly of the front body support surface, as defined in Claim 94.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
236
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Behar et al. teach a lumbar support 118 configured to be vertically spaced from a lateral support 64, wherein the lumbar support 118 is capable of being moveable between at least first and second configurations; and a strut 116 extending between and configured to be connected directly to the lateral support 238 and the lumbar support 118. Behar et al. also teach a body support member 84 for extending or is capable of extending between and connected to the uprights of the backrest of BALLENDAT et al., the body support member comprising a front body support surface, and that the lumbar support 118 is positioned rearwardly of the front body support surface of the body support member 84 (see Fig. 16). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backrest, as taught by BALLENDAT et al., to include a lumbar support with a strut, as taught by Behar et al., since it could be attached to the lateral support 238,238 of BALLENDAT et al., sine the combination of the lateral support and the lumbar support would allow not only deformability of the chair component, for example of a basic support, of a seat support or of a backrest support, but the deformability would result in a functionality of the chair component that is based solely on the resulting deformability. As energy store, the torsion element additionally also provides a counterforce which is directed counter to a functional deformation, for example a deflection.
As for claims 95-96, so far as understood, the combination of BALLENDAT et al. in view of Behar et al. would teach opposite ends of the lumbar support being supported by the uprights in the same manner that the lumbar support of the present invention is supported at opposite ends by the uprights; wherein each of the ends is moveably supported by one of the uprights.
As for Claim 97, Behar et al. teach that the lumbar support 118 is slideably supported by the strut 116.
As for Claims 98-99, Behar et al. teach that the strut 116 is disposed between a pair of uprights and is centrally located between the pair of uprights, as defined in Claim 99.
As for Claims 105 and 108, BALLENDAT et al. wherein the lateral support member defines a biasing member 239 applying a biasing force to the strut in response to the strut pivoting about the axis; As for Claim 107, BALLENDAT et al. teaches that.
As for Claim 106, BALLENDAT et al. teach that lateral support member defines the axis.
As for Claim 107, BALLENDAT et al. teaches that the lateral support member 238 is non- rotatably fixed at opposite ends thereof, wherein the lateral support member is configured to be twisted when the strut 116 is pivoted about the axis.
As for Claim 109, BALLENDAT et al. teach that the base comprises a pair of laterally spaced uprights 241, wherein the opposite ends of the lateral support member are non-rotatably fixed to the uprights 241.
As for Claim 110, Behar et al. further comprises a body support member having a front substrate covering a front surface of the lumbar support
Claim 111 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALLENDAT et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,1789,72 B2) in view of Behar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,926,016 B2), as applied to claims 104 and 110 above, and further in view of Maier et al.(U.S. Patent No. 7,344,194 B2).
BALLENDAT et al. in view of Behar et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the body support member comprises a rear substrate covering a rear surface of the lumbar support.
PNG
media_image4.png
340
150
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Maier et al. teaches a body support member comprising a front substrate covering a front surface of the lumbar support and a rear substrate covering a rear surface of the lumbar support.
Claims 112-117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BALLENDAT et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,1789,72 B2) in view of Behar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,926,016 B2) and Maier et al.(U.S. Patent No. 7,344,194 B2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of supporting the body of a user, as recited, as this would be the normal and logical manner of supporting the body of a user as taught by the combination of references discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 118 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “Ballendat discloses a transverse strut 238, forming torsion bar springs 239, that control and bias the tilting of the seat backrest 236 (Ballendat at Col. 14, lines 7- 37; FIGS. 2 to 4). The strut 238 is akin to the biasing component 300 of the present application.” However, the “transverse strut 238” of Ballendat meets the structural limitations as presented in Claims 94, 104, and 112.
Applicant argues that “Behar expressly discloses that the brace 116 is "secured to the backrest member 84," and "since the brace is secured to the backrest member 84, rather than the upright [72 or curved support 64,] the brace 116 and pad 118 are allowed to flex and move with the backrest member 84, thereby providing additional support but without restricting the movement of the backrest member" (Behar at Col. 8, line 61 to Col. 9, line 26). Alternatively, the pad 118 may be attached directly to the upright, but without the brace 116 (id.).”
However, the part of the specification of the Behar et al. patent that Applicant’s Representative only describes the embodiment of the Behar et al. patent that is shown in Figures 35-36. The embodiment shown in Figures 16 and 18 shows what appears to show the “brace 116”, which the Office equates as the “strut” defined in Claims 94, 105, and 112 of the present invention, that is connected to a “lateral support”, the “curved support 64”. This connection is supported by Figures 16 and 18 of the Behar et al. patent. Even if “brace 116” is not directly connected to “curved support 64”, the Behar et al. patent is relied upon for the “brace 116”. i.e. a “strut” that is capable of or configured for connection to a “lateral support”, such as the “transverse strut 238” of BALLENDAT et al. Applicant’s argument that Behar et al. teaches against the “brace 116” being directly connected to the “curved support 64”, though incorrect, is irrelevant.
Applicant also argues that “Ballendat discloses a transverse strut 238, forming torsion bar springs 239, that control and bias the tilting of the seat backrest 236 (Ballendat at Col. 14, lines 7- 37; FIGS. 2 to 4). The strut 238 is akin to the biasing component 300 of the present application. Claims 94 and 104, however, are directed to the lumbar support, which includes a lateral support 202 separate from the biasing component 300, as shown for example in FIG. 21.”
Again, Applicant is relying upon Fig. 21 of Behar et al. which is a completely different embodiment from the embodiment shown in Figures 16 and 18 of Behar et al.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The present claim recites that the “strut twists the lateral support,” not that the strut itself is twistable or acts as a torsion element. The claim language is satisfied by a strut that applies a twisting force to the lateral support, regardless of whether the strut itself twists.
The cited references, when combined, teach a strut extending between two elements and imparting a force to a lateral support, and it would be obvious to make such elements unitary, especially since there is nothing disclosed by Behar et al. that would not allow or would prevent a strut, such as the “brace 116” of Behar et al, from being directly connected to the “transverse strut 238” of Ballendat . The combination of these features is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Should the claim be amended to require that the strut itself to be twistable or to have a particular attachment configuration not disclosed or suggested by the prior art, applicant’s argument may be persuasive. However, such limitations are not present in the current claim.
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 Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. Dunn can be reached on (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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
