October 24, 2025
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, line 3, the word “rigis” appears to be a typographical error and should have been - - rigid - - instead. Appropriate 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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0274937 A1) in view of and Dorsainvil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,925,405 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goldstein et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including a chair apparatus comprising:
a support frame 110, the support frame including a pair of legs and
a seat being 120 coupled to the support frame, the seat having an upper surface configured for supporting a user;
a backrest 130 being pivotally coupled to the seat, the backrest being movable between a lowered position and a raised position, a body support surface of the backrest facing upwardly and lying coplanar to the upper surface of the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position, the body support surface forming an obtuse angle with the upper surface of the seat when the backrest is positioned in the raised position (see Figures 2-3);
a lift mechanism 140 being operably coupled to the backrest wherein the lift mechanism 140 is operable to move the backrest between the lowered position and the raised position;
a power supply being electrically coupled to the lift mechanism, the power supply comprising a battery (not shown); and
a solar panel 150 being electrically coupled to the battery (see paragraph [0021] where it reads “The linear actuator 140 may be powered by solar power. As is shown in FIG. 3, solar panels 150 may capture solar energy, a battery (not shown) may store the energy,…..”); Goldstein et al. do not teach that that the solar panel 150 positioned on an upwardly facing portion of the main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position nor do they teach that the main body is coupled to and extending between the pair of legs
PNG
media_image2.png
94
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
196
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Cohan et al. teach a chair that uses the concept of a support frame comprising a pair of legs 21 and a main body, the main body being rigid, planar and coupled to and extending between the pair of legs 21, each leg of the pair of legs being elongated and having an arch shape, a central portion of each leg of the pair of legs being spaced upwardly from the main body and defining one of a pair of armrests; and the seat is positioned on the main body (see Figures 2-3).
PNG
media_image4.png
184
250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dorsainvil et al. teach a similar chair apparatus comprising a main body, the main body being rigid, planar, and coupled to and extending between a pair of legs;
with a solar panel 42 that can be positioned on an upwardly facing portion of a main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair, as taught by Goldstein et al., to include of a support frame comprising a pair of legs and a main body, the main body being coupled to and extending between the pair of legs, each leg of the pair of legs being elongated and having an arch shape, a central portion of each leg of the pair of legs being spaced upwardly from the main body and defining one of a pair of armrests; and the seat is positioned on the main body, as taught by Cohan et al., since the support frame of such chairs can come in many different styles, as shown by the drawings of Cohan et al., since the type or structure of the support frame is nothing more than a matter of design choice and style. One motivation of using the main body being coupled to and extending between the pair of legs is that it would result in a chair that includes at least first and second adjustable backrest portions pivotally attached to the pair of legs that would provide structure for a reversible lounge chair. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair apparatus, as taught by Goldstein et al.. to include a solar panel positioned on an upwardly facing portion of a main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position, as taught by Dorsainvil et al., since it would provide a solar panel that is out of the way of the user of the chair and would provide an obstruction to the user of the chair.
As for claim 3, Goldstein et al. teach that the solar panel 150 is positioned on a portion of the main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position.
As for claim 4, Goldstein et al. further comprises an input 156 being operatively coupled to the lift mechanism, the input being mounted to the support frame, the input being positioned on one armrest of the pair of armrests.
As for claim 5, Goldstein et al. further comprises a charging port 152 being electrically coupled to the power supply, the charging port being mounted to the support frame, the input being positioned on the one armrest.
As for claim 6, Goldstein et al. further comprises an input 156 being operatively coupled to the lift mechanism.
As for claim 7, Goldstein et al. further comprises a charging port 152 being electrically coupled to the power supply.
As for claim 8, Goldstein et al. further comprises the lift mechanism comprising a linear actuator 140.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0274937 A1) in view of Cohan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,207,622 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 11,707,134 B2).
Goldstein et al. in view of Cohan et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach a headrest being mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
164
182
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Lee teach mounting a headrest to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface of a similar chair to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair, as taught by Goldstein et al. in view of Cohan et al., to include a headrest mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface, as taught by Lee, since it would support the head and/or neck of a person using the chair and provide optimal comfort to the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0274937 A1) in view of Cohan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,207,622 B2), Dorsainvil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,925,405 B2), and Lee (U.S. Patent No. 11,707,134 B2).
Goldstein et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed (see the above 103 rejection) but does not teach that each leg of the pair of legs being elongated and having an arch shape or a headrest being mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface, that the solar panel is positioned on an upwardly facing portion of the main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position nor do they teach a headrest being mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface.. However, Cohan et al. teach a support frame comprising a pair of legs and a main body, the main body being coupled to and extending between the pair of legs, each leg of the pair of legs being elongated and having an arch shape, a central portion of each leg of the pair of legs being spaced upwardly from the main body and defining one of a pair of armrests. Dorsainvil et al. teach a similar chair apparatus with a solar panel 42 positioned on an upwardly facing portion of a main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position. Lee teaches a headrest being mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair, as taught by Goldstein et al., to include a support frame comprising a pair of legs and a main body, the main body being coupled to and extending between the pair of legs, each leg of the pair of legs being elongated and having an arch shape, a central portion of each leg of the pair of legs being spaced upwardly from the main body and defining one of a pair of armrests; and the seat is positioned on the main body, as taught by Cohan et al., since the support frame of such chairs can come in many different styles, as shown by the drawings of Cohan et al., since the type or structure of the support frame is nothing more than a matter of design choice and style. One motivation of using the main body being coupled to and extending between the pair of legs is that it would result in a chair that includes at least first and second adjustable backrest portions pivotally attached to the pair of legs that would provide structure for a reversible lounge chair. . It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair apparatus, as taught by Goldstein et al., to include a solar panel positioned on an upwardly facing portion of a main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position, as taught by Dorsainvil et al., since it would provide a solar panel that is out of the way of the user of the chair and would provide an obstruction to the user of the chair. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chair, as taught by Goldstein et al., to include a headrest mounted to the backrest and being positioned on the body support surface, as taught by Lee, since it would support the head and/or neck of a person using the chair and provide optimal comfort to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 10 to further define that the “main body” is ‘rigid”. However, each one of the prior art references teach that its support frame has a main body that is “rigid”. Goldstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0274937 A1) teach that ‘The chaise lounge 100 may be constructed of plastic, PVC, metal, aluminum, metal alloys, or any appropriate material now known or later discovered.”. Therefore, the “main body” is “rigid”. Cohan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,207,622 B2) teaches that “The lounge chair 10 has a frame 20, which may be made of aluminum or other material capable of supporting the weight of one or more persons…..”. Therefore, the main body is “rigid”. It is not clear why Applicant thought that further defining the “main body” as “rigid” would make the Claims 1 and 10 allowable.
Furthermore, both Claims 1 and 10 define that “the solar panel is positioned on an upwardly facing portion of the main body which extends outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position.” Dorsainvil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,925,405 B2) is used as a teaching reference and clearly teaches a “solar panel 42” that is perfectly capable of being positioned on the main body of the chair taught by Goldstein et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0274937 A1) . The Dorsainvil et al. patent is only used to teach that a “solar panel” can be positioned and oriented in the same upwardly facing direction in the same area of the chair as the “solar panel” disclosed in the present invention. There is absolutely no reason why the “solar panel 42” of Dorsainvil et al. cannot be positioned on an upwardly facing portion of the “main body 110” of Goldstein et al. and extend outwardly from a distal edge of the backrest relative to the seat when the backrest is positioned in the lowered position, as it does in Fig. 3 of Dorsainvil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,925,405 B2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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