DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2 December 2025.
Notice of 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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection under Kager’813 because Kager’813 does not disclose “upon fixation of the abdominal thrust device to the chair back structure, the pressure-bearing portion bears against an upper edge surface of a side of the chair back structure facing away from ground, and a most protruding portion of the pressing member extends away from ground”, as required by amended claim 1. This argument is persuasive. Further, it would not be obvious to modify Kager’813 such that the most protruding portion of the pressing member 140 extends away from the ground because this would prevent holder 100 from holding objects. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection under Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136 follows below.
In order to advance prosecution, the Office is addressing some of the arguments made with respect to Kager’813.
Applicant argues Kager’813 is directed towards a blow dryer holder for attachment to a chair for easy access by a stylist and is not directed towards applying forces to the human abdomen and therefore is not analogous art, as required by MPEP 2141.01(a) (page 13). This argument is not persuasive because the requirement that a reference is analogous art is only applicable to rejections made under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2141.01(a). The rejection under Kager’813 is under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
However, the new rejection is under 35 USC 103 and uses references directed towards removable headrests. These references are considered analogous art because they reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In the instance case, the inventor is concerned with securely attaching rounded object to a chair (see 12/2/2025 arguments at page 10). Weeden’389 and Weber’136 are directed towards addressing this same problem. In particular, Weber’136 is directed towards securing attaching a fastener to chair backs having a variety of shapes/sizes. See lines 52-63
Further, MPEP 2112 Section I states “the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” In this case, the fact that the disclosed invention was specifically designed to address human force application dynamics does not render the device novel or non-obvious. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01 Section I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeden (US Patent 91,389) in view of Weber (US Patent 1,365,136).
Claim 1: Weeden’389 teaches a device (Figure 1), fixed to a chair back structure (Figure 3), characterized in that comprising:
a fastener (F), having a pressure-bearing portion (top, with respect to the page),; and
a pressing member (A), having an upwardly protruding rounded blunt shape, disposed at a top portion of the fastener (Figures 1, 3),
wherein, upon fixation of the abdominal thrust device to the chair back structure, the pressure-bearing portion bears against an upper edge surface of a side of the chair back structure facing away from the ground, and a most protruding portion of the pressuring member extends away from the ground (Figure 3).
Weeden’389 does not teach the fastener includes a fastening element.
Like Weeden’389, Weber’136 teaches a detachable headrest. The detachable headrest is fixed to a chair back structure (B), and comprises:
a fastener (1), having a pressure-bearing portion (see annotated copy of Figure 1 below), the fastener being fixed to the chair back structure by at least one fastening element (4) so as to have the pressure- bearing portion tightly bear against the chair back structure (Figure 1). Weber’136’s fastener is advantageous because the fastening element (4) allows the device (Figure 1) to be attached to chairs having different shapes and/or sizes.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Weeden’389 by substituting the fastener (F) with the fastener (1) taught by Weber’136, in order to allow the headrest to be attached to seats or chairs having different shapes and sizes.
Claim 2: Weber’136 teaches the at least one fastening element (4) is at least one selected from a group consisting of a screw, an adhesive, a stopper portion, a spring, an extending clamping portion, and a protruding portion (screw – Figure 1 and column 1, lines 49).
Claim 3: Weber’136 teaches the fastening element is a screw (4; Figure 1, column 1, lines 49), and an end of the screw is provided with a stopper plate (5), the screw bearing against the chair back structure via the stopper plate (Figure 1).
Claim 4: Weber’136 teaches the fastener (1) comprises a fixing plate (top of “pressure bearing portion” as identified in the annotated copy of Figure 1 above). The pressing member (7, 8 and 4) is disposed on a top portion of the fixing plate (Figure 1) and a bottom of the fixing plate serves as the pressure bearing portion (Figure 1).
In Weeden’389, the pressing member (A) is on the top of the fastener (F), as well (see Figure 1).
Claim 5: In Weeden’389, the pressing member (A) is considered to be in the shape of a human fist because it is approximately the size of a hand and provides a rounded blunt surface.
Claim 6: In Weeden’389, the horizontal cross-section of the pressing member (A) is parallel to an upper edge where the pressure bearing portion tightly bears the chair back structure (Figure 1, 3).
In Weber’136, the horizontal cross-section of the pressure bearing portion is parallel to an upper edge of the chair back and tightly bears the chair back structure (Figure 1).
Weeden’389 and Weber’136 does not disclose the dimensions of the pressing member including that it is greater than 8 centimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the pressing member of Weeden’389 to have a horizontal cross-section of at least 8 centimeters because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the pressing member of Weeden’389 would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since it would still function as a headrest. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the width is “for example” or preferably be within the claimed ranges (specification at paragraph [0009], [0032]).
Claim 7: In Weeden’389, there is a soft material (B) that covers at least a portion of the pressing member.
Claim 10: In Weber’136, the fastener (1) further comprises a first side extension wall (see annotated copy of Figure 1 below), the first side extension wall being connected to a side edge of the pressure-bearing portion and disposed perpendicular to the pressure- bearing portion (Figure 1);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first side extension wall and a remaining portion of the fastener other than the first side extension wall are either integrally formed or each is a separate component connected to each other (Figure 1 shows the fastener is a single component).
Claim 15: Weber’136 teaches the fastener (1) is a C-shaped clamp (Figure 1).
Claim 16: Weber’136 teaches the at least one fastening element (4) is a screw (Figure 1 and column 1, lines 49).
Claim 20: Weber’136 teaches the c-shaped clamp comprises at least one side extension wall (see annotated figure in claim 10 above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Carnevali et al. (US Patent Publication 2007/0241248).
Claim 8: Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136 does not teach the top of the fastener has a first engaging portion and the bottom of the pressing member has a second engaging portion to fix the two elements together.
Carnevali’248 teaches a fastener (10) with a top portion (18). The fastener engages with a pressing portion (32) via a first engaging portion (82) on the fastener and a second engaging portion (74) on the pressing member. This arrangement is advantageous because it allows the user to substitute a pressing member with a different shape, as needed, depending on what is being attached to the fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136 by providing the fastener and pressing member each with an engaging portion, in order to allow the pressing member to be removed from the fastener so it can be replaced with a different shaped pressing member in order to allow a different/replacement headrest to be attached o the fastener.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136, as applied claim 10, further in view of Sanders et al (US Patent 10,681,986).
Claim 11: In Weber’136, the fastener (1) further comprises a second side extension wall (2), the second side extension wall being connected to another side edge of the pressure-bearing portion (see annotate copy of Figure 1 in the rejection to claim 10 above) opposite to the side edge and disposed perpendicular to the pressure-bearing portion (the proximal portion of the second side extension wall 2 is perpendicular to the pressure bearing portion);
the second side extension wall (2) and a remaining portion of the fastener other than the second side extension wall are either integrally formed or each is a separate component connected to each other (Figure 3 shows the fastener 1 is a single component).
If it is not convincing that the second side extension wall (2) is perpendicular to the pressure-bearing portion, Sanders’936 teaches a detachable headrest like Weber’136 and Weeden’389. Like Weber’136, Sanders’936 teaches a fastener (240) with a fastening element (screw 250) having a pressure-bearing portion (244), a first side extension wall (246) and a second side extension wall (242). Both the first and second side extension walls are disposed perpendicular to the pressure bearing portion (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Weeden’389 in view of Weber’136, such that the second side extension wall is disposed perpendicular to the pressure bearing portion, as in Sanders’936, in order to create a larger contact area between the fastener and the chair in order to create a more secure connection.
Claim 12: Weber’136 teaches the at least one fastening element (4) is at least one selected from a group consisting of a screw, an adhesive, a stopper portion and a spring, (screw – Figure 1 and column 1, lines 49).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY BACHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm and alternating Fridays.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 571-272-7134. 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.
Lindsey Bachman
/L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 30 December 2025
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771