DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 04 March 2026.
Claims 15 and 19 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claim 21 is newly presented by the Applicant.
Claims 1-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s). It is noted, the amendments to the claims have generated new 112(b) rejections.
The arguments in response to the specification objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive. The Examiner notes, while a new figure has been submitted with new arrows, the numbers have not been included with the new arrows. It is further noted, the scope of missing numbers in the figures extends beyond paragraph [0056].
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found moot in light of the new rejection(s) below.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action.
The arguments in response to the claims 6 and 12 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found moot in light of the new rejection(s) below.
The arguments in response to the claims 10-11 and 13 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found not found persuasive in light of the new rejection below.
The arguments in response to the claims 16-17 and 20 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to Coffield:
The Applicant alleges a clamping mechanism taught by the Instant Application is not taught by the Coffield reference, and that the fabric can be easily replaced, unlike the Coffield invention. The Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, and thus are not found persuasive. It is further noted that the Applicant has mischaracterized the Coffield reference, since the fabric portion is fitted to a removable frame (seat carrier 28) and the removable frame is fitted/screwed into the channel 48 of the seat frame 26 (see FIG. 3), thus the fabric portion is replaceable in as much as the Instant Application.
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to Kawasaki:
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to “connection mechanism” are not found persuasive since a connection mechanism is not claimed. Giving the Applicant the benefit of the doubt, if Applicant is intending to refer to the attachment mechanism, the rejection of record does not rely on Kawasaki to provide the newly amended claim language.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
The arguments in response to the claims 18 and 21 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found not found persuasive in light of the new rejection below.
A new rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "pivotal connection mechanism," first introduced in claim 10:
the pivotal connection mechanism provides a pivoting connection between the seat and backrest portions of the chair and may comprise a base connector 34 and a back connector 44, which are pivotally secured to one another via knobs extending from the lower or upper ends (see [0056]), or alternatively a rod extending from connection with upper end 40 through and/or to connection with the lower end 46 (see [0056]), or an equivalent thereof.
B. "pivoting mechanism," first introduced in claim 18:
the pivoting mechanism provides a pivoting connection between the seat and backrest portions of the chair and may comprise a base connector 34 and a back connector 44, which are pivotally secured to one another via knobs extending from the lower or upper ends (see [0056]), or alternatively a rod extending from connection with upper end 40 through and/or to connection with the lower end 46 (see [0056]), or an equivalent thereof.
C. "attachment mechanism," first introduced in claim 1:
the attachment mechanism provides the function of securing the seat to a pre-existing support and may comprise one or more openings or apertures 11 integrated into the base frame (see for example [0020, 0062], not labeled, FIG. 5), or an equivalent thereof.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Regarding Figure 4:
Amended figure 4 shows reference character 11 generically pointing to some unknown structure. Based on the amendments to paragraph [0062] of the specification, reference character 11 refers to the apertures which comprise the attachment mechanism, which cannot be seen in figure 4.
Regarding Figure 5:
Figure 5 shows the apertures which comprise the attachment mechanism, and thus should be labeled with reference character 11, disclosed in newly amended paragraph [0062].
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.
Regarding Claim 13:
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 “wherein the seat is collapsible such that the second frame is pivotal about the pivotal connection mechanism to contact the first frame and wherein the seat can double as a bump seat” (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 13. 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 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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The term, "the first frame structure” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of the claim. It is not clear if “the first frame” is intended to refer to the term “a first frame,” or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, “the first frame [[structure]].”
Regarding Claim 11:
The term, "the first perimeter frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of the claim. It is not clear if “the first perimeter frame” is intended to refer to the term “a first perimeter frame,” first mentioned in claim 2, or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, “a [[the]] first perimeter frame.”
Further Regarding Claim 11:
The term, "the second perimeter frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of the claim. It is not clear if “the second perimeter frame” is intended to refer to the term “a second perimeter frame,” first mentioned in claim 5, or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, “a [[the]] second perimeter frame.”
Further Regarding Claim 11:
The term, "the first frame section” and the term “the second frame section” lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of the claim. It is not clear if language "the first frame section” and the term “the second frame section” is intended to refer to the term "a first frame” and the term “a second frame,” first mentioned in claim 1, or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, "the first frame [[section]]” and the term “the second frame [[section]]”
Regarding Claims 2-14:
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of dependence.
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(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffield (US 6966606), hereafter referred to as Coffield, in view of Non-Patent Literature Tempress ProBax Captains Helm Boat, hereafter referred to as Tempress..
Regarding Claim 1, Coffield discloses the following:
A seat for a watercraft, the seat comprising:
a non-metal seat framework (for example polypropylene, see Col. 7, lines 19-29) comprising:
a first frame (26; FIG. 1); and
a second frame (30; FIG. 1), and
a non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) provided on the first frame (26; FIG. 1), provided on the second frame (30; FIG. 1) or a combination thereof.
wherein a seating surface (surface of 16) is provided on a first removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) wherein the first removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) is removably coupled to the first frame (26; FIG. 1),
wherein a backrest surface (surface of 18) is provided on a second removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) wherein the second removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) is removably coupled to the second frame (30; FIG. 1)(see Col. 4, line 58 to Col. 5, line21).
Coffield does not disclose the following:
an attachment mechanism integrated into the first frame structure for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft,
However Tempress teaches the following:
an attachment mechanism (holes in the polyethylene seat shell that hold the stainless steel screws, see pager 4) integrated into the first frame structure for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft (for example see top picture, page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wheel base supporting the first frame, as disclosed by Coffield, with the attachment mechanism integrated into the first frame for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft, as disclosed by Tempress, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known means to attach a seat to a watercraft. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the wheel base supporting means of Coffield with the attachment means of Tempress yields the predictable result of providing a means to support a seat (i.e. substituting one known means to support a seat for another know means to support a seat). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1
wherein the first frame (26; FIG. 1) comprises a first perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3) with an opening therein and one or more cross members (22; FIG. 3) are provided below the opening and extending across the opening.
Regarding Claim 3, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 2
wherein the opening supports a seating surface (surface of 16) thereacross and wherein the seating surface (surface of 16) is supported by the first perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3) and wherein the one or more cross members (22; FIG. 3) are spaced below the seating surface (surface of 16) and thus not in direct contact with the seating surface (surface of 16).
Regarding Claim 4, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 3
wherein the first removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) is removably coupled to the first perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1
wherein the second frame (30; FIG. 1) comprises a second perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3) with an opening therein and one or more cross members (22; FIG. 3) are provided behind the opening and extending across the opening (the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 6, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 5
wherein the opening supports a backrest (18) thereacross and wherein the backrest is supported by the second perimeter frame (48)
Coffield as modified by Tempress does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the one or more cross members are spaced behind the backrest and thus not in direct contact with the backrest surface.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cross member 22 as applied to the seat portion of the seat, as taught by Coffield, wherein the duplicated cross member is added to the back portion of the seat, so as to help secure the back portion of the seat to the seat portion of the seat. It is noted, one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the addition of the duplicated cross member would further provide additional rigidity to the seat back portion (Official Notice).
Coffield as modified results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the one or more cross members (22; FIG. 3) are spaced behind the backrest and thus not in direct contact with the backrest surface (surface of 18)(the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 7, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 6
wherein the second removable panel (as seen in FIG. 3, note, the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55) is removably coupled to the second perimeter frame (48).
Regarding Claim 8, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1
wherein one or more air flow paths (as seen in the Figures) are provided below or behind the non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) provided on the first frame (26; FIG. 1) and/or the second frame (30; FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 9 Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1
wherein the first frame (26; FIG. 1) is provided with the non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) such that the first frame (26; FIG. 1) provides a seating surface (surface of 16) configured to withstand a user seated thereon and wherein the second frame (30; FIG. 1) is provided with non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) such that the second frame (30; FIG. 1) provides a backrest surface (surface of 18) to the seat.
Regarding Claim 10, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 9
Coffield as previously modified above does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first frame and second frame are pivotally coupled together by a pivotal connection mechanism such that the seat is a selectively collapsible seat for storage and transport.
However Tempress teaches the following:
wherein the first frame (bottom portion of the seat, for example top picture, page 3) and second frame (top portion of the seat, for example top picture, page 3) are pivotally coupled together by a pivotal connection mechanism positioned at a location above a seating surface of the first frame such that the seat is a selectively collapsible (see top picture page 3) seat for storage and transport.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fixed base between the seat and back, as taught by Coffield, with the pivoting base, as taught by Tempress, with the reasonable expectation of collapsing/folding the chair (see Product Description, as well as top picture page 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 10
Coffield as modified by Tempress results in the following limitation(s):
second perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3) dimension and shape allows the second frame (30; FIG. 1) section to fold down and nest directly on top of the first frame section (26; FIG. 1) and within the first perimeter frame (48; FIG. 3) to form a compact and nested seat (since figure 1 of Coffield shows the seat back is narrower than the bottom, Coffield as modified above would result in nearly all of the second frame/top being allowed to nest directly on top of the first frame/bottom and within the first perimeter/perimeter of the bottom section, in as much as the Instant Application).
Regarding Claim 12, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1,
wherein the opening supports a backrest (18) thereacross and wherein the backrest is supported by the second perimeter frame (48)
Coffield as modified by Tempress does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the second frame is provided with a support member spaced apart from the non-metal open mesh fabric on the second frame and has an outer surface curvature.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cross member 22 as applied to the seat portion of the seat, as taught by Coffield, wherein the duplicated cross member is added to the back portion of the seat, so as to help secure the back portion of the seat to the seat portion of the seat. It is noted, one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the addition of the duplicated cross member would further provide additional rigidity to the seat back portion (Official Notice).
Coffield as modified results in the following limitation(s):
wherein the second frame (30; FIG. 1) is provided with a support member spaced apart from the non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) on the second frame (30; FIG. 1) and has an outer surface curvature.
Regarding Claim 13, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 12
Tempress continues to disclose the following:
wherein the seat is collapsible such that the second frame is pivotal about the pivotal connection mechanism to contact the first frame and wherein the seat can double as a bump seat (see top picture page 3, the seat pictured in the rear is folded into a bump seat).
Regarding Claim 14, Coffield as modified by Tempress discloses the following:
The seat of claim 1
wherein the non-metal open mesh fabric (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) is comprised of a knit or woven plastic, polymer, or combination thereof and wherein the fabric is stretched across one or both of the first frame (26; FIG. 1) and the second frame (30; FIG. 1).
Claims 16-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffield (US 6966606), hereafter referred to as Coffield, in view of Kawasaki (US 6435618), hereafter referred to as Kawasaki and Non-Patent Literature Tempress ProBax Captains Helm Boat, hereafter referred to as Tempress.
Regarding Claim 16, Coffield discloses the following:
A non-metal seat comprising
a non-metal frame work (for example polypropylene, see Col. 7, lines 19-29) and a non-metal open mesh (16, 18; see Col. 6, lines 35-40 and Col. 7, lines 50-55) seating surface (surface of 16) stretched across an opening in a base portion (26) of the non-metal framework and
wherein the non-metal frame is constructed from plastic (polypropylene) and
wherein the non-metal open mesh seating surface (surface of 16) is stretched across the opening in the base portion (26) of the non-metal framework (26) and spaced apart from one or more frame support members (22) extending across and below the non-metal framework such that the open mesh (16) is not in contact with the one or more frame support members (22) and air flow is allowed to circulate below and around the seating surface (surface of 16).
Coffield does not explicitly disclose the following:
the non-metal open mesh comprises a woven or knit open mesh panel comprising nylon, vinyl, or a combination thereof.
However Kawasaki teaches the following:
the non-metal open mesh comprises a woven or knit open mesh panel comprising nylon (woven nylon skin member 6, FIG. 9; Col. 6, lines 46-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material of the woven mesh seating and backing, as disclosed by Coffield, with the woven nylon, as disclosed by Kawasaki, with the reasonable expectation of providing a material capable of performing as a seat fabric. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the commercially available fabrics of Coffield with the woven nylon of Kawasaki yields the predictable result of providing a seat fabric (i.e. substituting one known means to produce a seat fabric for another known means to provide a seat fabric). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner further notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Kawasaki discloses the aforementioned material(s) is/are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of seats (see MPEP 2144.07).
Further regarding Claim 16, Coffield as modified by Kawasaki does not disclose the following:
an attachment mechanism integrated into the first frame structure for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft,
However Tempress teaches the following:
the non-metal frame having an attachment mechanism (holes in the polypropylene seat shell bottom that hold the stainless steel screws, see pager 4) integrated therein for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft (for example see top picture, page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wheel base support means supporting the non-metal frame, as disclosed by Coffield, with the attachment mechanism integrated into the non-metal frame for securing the seat to a pre-existing seat support of the watercraft, as disclosed by Tempress, with the reasonable expectation of providing a known means to attach a seat to a watercraft. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the wheel base of Coffield with the attachment means of Tempress yields the predictable result of providing a means to support a seat (i.e. substituting one known means to support a seat for another know means to support a seat). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 17, Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress teaches the following:
The non-metal seat of claim 16
Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress continues to teach the following:
and further comprising a non-metal open mesh backrest surface (surface of 18) stretched across an opening in a back support portion of the non-metal framework (the back is made in the same way as the seat, see Col. 7, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 18, Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress discloses the following:
The non-metal seat of claim 16
Coffield as modified above does not explicitly disclose the following:
and further comprising a pivoting mechanism coupling the base portion to the backrest support portion such that the non-metal seat is a foldable seat.
However Tempress continues to teach the following:
and further comprising a pivoting mechanism (as seen in the top picture of page 3) coupling the base portion (bottom portion) to the backrest support portion (backrest portion) such that the non-metal seat is a foldable seat (as seen in the picture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fixed base between the seat and back, as taught by Coffield, with the pivoting base, as taught by Tempress, with the reasonable expectation of folding the chair (see for example page 3 top picture, Product Description).
Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress teaches the following:
and further comprising a pivoting mechanism (as seen in the top picture of page 3 of Tempress) coupling the base portion (26 of Coffield) to the backrest support portion (30 of Coffield) such that the non-metal seat is a foldable seat (as seen in the top picture of page 3, and applied to the base and backrest of Coffield).
Regarding Claim 20, Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress teaches the following:
The non-metal seat of claim 16
Coffield as modified by Kawasaki does not teach the following:
where in the non-metal open mesh backrest surface is stretched across the opening in the backrest support portion of the non-metal framework and spaced apart from a support member extending across and behind the non-metal framework such that the open mesh is not in contact with the support member.
However the Examiner notes the following:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cross member 22 as applied to the seat portion of the seat, as taught by Coffield, wherein the duplicated cross member is added to the back portion of the seat , so as to help secure the back portion of the seat to the seat portion of the seat. It is noted, one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the addition of the duplicated cross member would further provide additional rigidity to the seat back portion (Official Notice) and the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Duplication of parts teaches the following:
where in the non-metal open mesh backrest surface (surface of 18) is stretched across the opening in the backrest support portion (30) of the non-metal framework and spaced apart from a support member (22) extending across and behind the non-metal framework such that the open mesh is not in contact with the support member.
Regarding Claim 21, Coffield as modified by Kawasaki, and Tempress discloses the following:
The non-metal seat of claim 18,
wherein the pivoting mechanism (hinge of Tempress) coupling the base portion (26 of Tempress) to the backrest support (30 of Coffield) portion at a location positioned above the location of the open mesh seating surface stretched across the opening in the base portion of the non-metal framework (as seen in the picture the hinge is located above the seat portion thus Coffield as modified by Kawasaki and Tempress would result in the limitation above);
the non-metal seat is selectively collapsible (at taught by Tempress) for storage and transport and wherein the base portion (26 of Tempress) has a first shape that allows the backrest support portion (30 of Coffield) to fold down and nest directly on top of the base portion (26 of Tempress) to form a compact and nested seat (since figure 1 of Coffield shows the seat back is narrower than the bottom, Coffield as modified above would result in the second frame/top to nest directly on top of the first frame/bottom and within the first perimeter/perimeter of the bottom section, in as much as the Instant Application) installed on the watercraft (as modified by Tempress).
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 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 BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745