August 17, 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 1 and 7, Yust teaches a seating apparatus configured to removably couple with one or more accessories, the seating apparatus comprising:
a back support assembly (stadium seat back) having a back frame; and
a rail system 12 configured to removably couple with and support the one or more accessories via a rail track; wherein the one or more accessories includes a cup-holder assembly, as defined in Claim 7;
wherein the rail track comprises a bulb portion 13,13a (see Figures 4-5) coupled to and spaced from a main body of the rail system via a neck portion 14,15 (see Figures 4-5).
As for Claims 4 and 6, Yust teaches that the back frame defines a backrest opening; wherein the rail system is integral with the back frame. (see the specification at column 3, lines 54-56 where it reads “The upper portion 12 typically is engaged or integral with the stadium seat back”).
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 Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962) in view of Levey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0121119 A1).
Yust teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the rail track comprises one or more conductors embedded in at least partially within the bulb portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
320
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Levey et al. teach the concept of embedding conductors inside the frames of a seating apparatus to be old (see Figures 1-4 of Levey et al. where heat localizing conductive members 38 are shown embedded in frame members 14 and 60). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rail system, as taught by Yust, to include one or more conductors embedded in the rail track, as taught by Levey et al. since it would allow heating of the conductor to transfer heat to the rail track and thereby soften the rail track to bond the rail track to a web that could be stretched across the rail system to provide a support on the back frame to support a person occupying the seating apparatus.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962) in view of Levey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0121119 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jacobs et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,349,744 B2).
Yust in view of Levey et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the rail system is configured to supply power to the one or more accessories via the one or more conductors. However, Jacobs et al. teach the concept of providing electric power and/or data conductors 2375b-e routed through portions of an accessory tray assembly 2300b-e (e.g., access holes 2239b of FIG. 22B) and/or a cup holder 2321a, 2321b, 2321d. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat assembly, as taught by Yust in view of Levey et al., to include conductors embedded in the rail system and configured to supply power to the one or more accessories, as taught by Jacobs et al., since the embedded conductors could route to a light source on the cup holder and/or a user interface display.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962) in view of Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1).
Yust teaches the structure substantially as claimed but it is not clear if the rail track is formed about an entire perimeter of the backrest opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
212
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
328
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Tenenboym et al. teach the concept of a rail track formed about an entire perimeter of a backrest opening in a similar seating assembly. Tenenboym et al. also teach a back support assembly comprising: a back frame defining a backrest opening and a suspension seating fabric stretched to cover the backrest opening. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the seating assembly, as taught by Yust, to include a rail track formed about an entire perimeter of a backrest opening, as taught by Tenenboym et al., since it is well known in the art to make theater and/or auditorium seats in this manner.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962) in view of Cass (U.S. Patent No. 10,136,737 B2).
Yust teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the one or more accessories includes a charge port assembly.
PNG
media_image6.png
266
276
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
282
308
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Cass teaches the concept of providing a tray, a cup holder, and a charge port assembly 156 to a seating apparatus; wherein the charge port assembly is configured to receive power via conductors that could be embedded in at least partially within the rail track; wherein the charge port assembly comprises one or more charge ports; wherein the one or more charge ports includes an AC outlet; wherein the one or more charge ports includes a DC outlet. (see Figures 14a-14b and claims 8-9 where it reads “The portable shelf of claim 1, wherein the wireless charger is configured to supply AC power to the electrical device.” and “The portable shelf of claim 1, wherein the wireless charger is configured to supply DC power to the electrical device.”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seating apparatus, as taught by Yust, to include a charge port assembly, as taught by Cass, since the charge port assembly could be configured to be used in basin holes 76 that is also configured to receive cup holder 148.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962) in view of Mummaneni (U.S. Patent No. 10,918,221 B2).
Yust teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the one or more accessories includes a headrest assembly.
PNG
media_image8.png
270
194
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Mummaneni teaches a similar seating apparatus that includes an accessory in the form of a headrest 101 and a stationary base (see Figures 1-2). Mummaneni does not teach a seating apparatus that comprises a wheeled base. However, the base that is used to support the seating apparatus in Fig. 2 can easily be replaced with a wheeled base, since office chairs with wheeled bases are well known in the art and is not patentable subject matter. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seating apparatus, as taught by Yust, to include a headrest assembly, as taught by Mummaneni since the embedded conductors would provide a power source for the powered vertical and angular adjustment of the headrest assembly.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0208694 A1) in view of Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1).
Baggott teaches a back support assembly for a seating apparatus that is configured to removably couple with one or more accessories 70, the back support assembly comprising: a back frame defines a backrest opening; and a rail system integral with the back frame and configured to removably couple with and support the one or more accessories via a rail track, wherein the rail track is formed about an entire perimeter of the backrest opening but does not teach a suspension seating fabric stretched to cover the backrest opening.
PNG
media_image9.png
212
258
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Tenenboym et al. teach a similar back support assembly comprising back frame defines a backrest opening that includes a suspension seating fabric stretched to cover the backrest opening (see 103 Rejection of Claim 5 above). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the back support assembly, as taught by Baggot, to include a suspension seating fabric stretched to cover the backrest opening, as taught by Tenenboym et al., since the fabric and other plush materials would be more comfortable than what appears to be rigid slats extending across the backrest frame of Baggott.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0208694 A1) in view of Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yust (U.S. Patent No. 4,262,962).
Baggott in view of Tenenboym et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the rail track comprises a bulb portion coupled to and spaced from a main body of the rail system via a neck portion. However, Yust teaches a rail track that that comprises a bulb portion coupled to and spaced from a main body of the rail system via a neck portion (see 102 Rejection of Claim 1 above). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the rail track, as taught by Baggot in view of Tenenboym et al., to include a bulb portion coupled to and spaced from a main body of the rail system via a neck portion., as taught by Yust, since it would make it easier to attach accessories to the back support assembly.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0208694 A1) in view of Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Levey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0121119 A1).
Baggott in view of Tenenboym et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the rail track comprises one or more conductors embedded in at least partially within the rail track and configured to supply power to the one or more accessories via the one or more conductors. However, Levey et al. teach the concept of embedding conductors inside the frames of a seating apparatus to be old (see Figures 1-4 of Levey et al. where heat localizing conductive members 38 are shown embedded in frame members 14 and 60). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rail system, as taught by Baggott in view of Tenenboym et al., to include one or more conductors embedded in the rail track, as taught by Levey et al., since it would allow heating of the conductor to transfer heat to the rail track and thereby soften the rail track to bond the rail track to a web that could be stretched across the rail system to provide a support on the back frame to support a person occupying the seating apparatus.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggott (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0208694 A1) in view of Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1), Levey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0121119 A1), and Cass (U.S. Patent No. 10,136,737 B2).
See 103 Rejection of Claims 8-12 above
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenenboym et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,582,020 B1) in view of Levey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0121119 A1).
Tenenboym et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including back support assembly for a seating apparatus that is configured to removably couple with one or more accessories, the back support assembly comprising: a back frame defines a backrest opening and a suspension seating fabric stretched to cover the backrest opening; and a rail system integral with the back frame and configured to removably couple with and support the one or more accessories via a rail track but does not teach that the rail track comprises one or more conductors embedded in at least partially within the rail track and configured to supply power to the one or more accessories via the one or more conductors. However, Levey et al. teach the concept of embedding conductors inside the frames of a seating apparatus to be old (see Figures 1-4 of Levey et al. where heat localizing conductive members 38 are shown embedded in frame members 14 and 60). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rail system, as taught by Tenenboym et al., to include one or more conductors embedded in the rail track, as taught by Levey et al. since it would allow heating of the conductor to transfer heat to the rail track and thereby soften the rail track to bond the rail track to a web that could be stretched across the rail system to provide a support on the back frame to support a person occupying the seating apparatus.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ 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 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