June 26, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0001] of the specification, Applicant needs to insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 12,207,737 B2 - - after “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/387,696, filed November 7, 2023,”. In that same paragraph, Applicant needs to insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 11,812,870 B2 - - after “which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/667,792, filed February 9, 2022,”. In paragraph [0084], lines 25 and 27, “131” (2 instances) should be - - 31 - - because in Fig. 42, the “front layer” is labeled with reference number “31”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “lumbar support comprises opposite ends supported by the uprights”, as defined in claims 95-97, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 41, which shows the “lumbar support 206”, shows the lumbar support 206” supported by the “lateral support 202”. It does not show “opposite ends” of the “lumbar support 206” supported by the uprights” or that “each of the ends is moveably supported by one of the uprights”. None of the drawings show “each of the ends is slideably supported by one of the uprights.”, as defined n claim 97 at all. Claims 95-97 appear to claim subject matter of a potentially different embodiment for which no drawings have been provided. No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 97 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 97, the word “the” after “wherein” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 115 is 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 115, line 2, “the opposite ends” lack antecedent basis.
The aforementioned problem renders the clam vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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 lateral support 238 extending between and fixedly coupled to the pair of uprights 241, 241, 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 as defined in Claim 94.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
378
media_image2.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 the lateral support 64 and the lumbar support 118. 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.m 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.configurations.
As for claims 95-96, so far as understood, the combination of BALLENDAT et al. in view of Behar et al. would teach opposiye ends of the lumbar support being supported by the uprights in the same amnner 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 is slideably supported by the strut 116.
As for Claims 98-99, Behar et al. teach that the 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. further comprises 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_image3.png
340
150
media_image3.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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
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
Prosecution Insights