June 12, 2026
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 .
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 “holder” in Claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There is no mention of a “holder” in the entire specification. Therefore, the “holder” does not appear in the drawings or it at least has not been labeled. Perhaps the “holder” has been referred to in the specification by another term. Applicant is reminded that consistent terminology must be used in the specification and the claims. 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 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Line 6, In Claim 14, Applicant claims “a headrest frame removably mounted to the top of the seatback”. Then in Claim 15, Applicant claims “wherein the headrest is removably mounted to the top of the seat back.” Claim 15 does not further limit Claim 14 since the subject matter of Claim 15 has already been claimed in Claim 14.
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant should probably cancel Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C.14102 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saberan (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,555 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 14-15, Saberan teaches a seat and seat headrest comprising:
a headrest frame comprising having:
a seat back;
a seat base connected to the seatback; and
a headrest frame removably mounted to the top of the seatback comprising:
a lower frame part 34 configured to be attached to a seat back;
an upper frame part 52 pivotally attached to the lower frame part to be moveable between a fully open position and a folded position (see Fig. 1 where it shows the headrest in a fully open position and a folded position);
a pivot arm 46 connected at a first end 40 to the upper frame part 52 and pivotally connected at a second end 38 to the lower frame part; and
a locking mechanism 76 to releasably lock the upper frame part relative to the lower frame part in the fully open position; wherein the locking mechanism comprises:
a shaft (see annotated Fig. 1 above) extending through the pivot arm and the lower frame part to define a pivot axis about which the pivot arm pivots relative to the lower frame part; and
a locking pin 60 configured to extend through the lower frame part, the pivot arm and the upper frame part to lock the pivot arm and upper frame part with respect to the lower frame part when the upper frame part is in a first, fully open, position relative to the lower frame part, and wherein actuation of the locking mechanism by a pushing action of a user causes movement of the locking pin 60 out of engagement with the pivot arm and the upper frame part to permit pivotal movement of the arm relative to the lower frame part about the pivot axis.
As for Claim 7, Saberan teaches that the upper frame part 52 is in the form of a U-shaped bracket having two legs arranged to be attached to the lower frame part by the pivot arm 46.
As for Claim 8, Saberan teaches that the pivot arm has a first hole in the first end for pivotal attachment to the upper frame part.
As for Claim 9, Saberan teaches that the pivot arm has a second hole in the second end through which the shaft passes to define the pivot axis.
As for Claim 10, Saberan teaches that the pivot arm has a third hole in the second end, through which the locking pin 60 passes.
As for Claim 12, Saberan further comprises cushioning fitted over the upper frame part.
As for Claim 13, Saberan further comprises a holder to which a headset can be mounted.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberan (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,555 B2).
Saberan teaches the structure substantially as claimed including that a pivot arm 46 and a is provided on each side of the headset frame but it is not clear if there is a locking mechanism is provided on each side of the headset frame. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use locking mechanisms on each side of the headrest frame. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily know that the use of two locking mechanisms allows for a backup locking mechanisms in case of failure in one. Furthermore, it has been found that the duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art, and in this case it is asserted that duplicate a single locking mechanism to be two locking mechanisms does not provide any unexpected result. . In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberan (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,555 B2)in view of Udriste et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,696,065 B2).
Saberan teaches the structure substantially as but it is not clear if there is a panel across the upper frame part to define a headrest surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
196
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Udriste et al teach a panel that cold be used to extend across the upper frame part to define a headrest surface. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, to include a panel across the upper frame, such as the panel taught by Udriste et al, since it would provide a sturdier support the person’s head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are 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.
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 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 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights