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 § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan US 1,625,106 in view of Miller US 10,799,027 and Nelson US 10,653,107, and alternatively also in view of Muraguchi US 9,795,218.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Sullivan Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches a convertible chair for a standup paddle board (intended use), the convertible chair comprising:
a seat portion B comprising
a first fabric structure 21 defining a seat of the convertible chair,
a first pair of structural members 11, 19 embedded in the first fabric structure and cooperating to define a boundary of the seat;
a cross assembly fixed to each structural member of the first pair of structural members, the cross assembly comprising:
a first leaf 13 defining a first elongated body comprising a first flat surface, and
a second leaf 14 defining a second elongated body comprising a second flat surface; and
a back portion comprising
a second fabric structure 22 defining a back of the convertible chair, and
a second pair of structural members 10, 18 embedded in the second fabric structure and cooperating to define a boundary of the back,
wherein, the seat portion and the back portion are moveably coupled along the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure, and
wherein, in a first open configuration, the seat portion is removably coupled to the back portion, and the cross assembly defines a rigid bridge between the first pair of structural members that is configured to maintain to maintain the convertible chair in the first open configuration when the seat is occupied by a rider, and
in a second stowed configuration, the cross assembly is pivotable to collapse the convertible chair along longitudinal axis of the convertible chair when unoccupied by the rider (see figure 2).
Sullivan does not teach that the seat and back comprise wing portions. Miller teaches a convertible chair for a standup paddle board (intended use), the convertible chair comprising:
a seat portion 101 comprising
a first fabric structure defining a seat of the convertible chair and a pair of seat portion wings 112 extending away from the seat,
a back portion 102 comprising
a second fabric structure defining a back of the convertible chair and a pair of back portion wings 116 extending away from the back, and
wherein, the seat portion and the back portion are moveably coupled along the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure, and wherein,
in a first open configuration, the pair of seat portion wings is removably coupled to pair of back portion wings to maintain the convertible chair in the first open configuration when the seat is occupied by a rider, and
in a second stowed configuration, the convertible chair is foldable to collapse the along longitudinal axis when unoccupied by the rider (see figure 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
330
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Miller Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Sullivan with the wing portions and quick-release buckles as taught by Miller in order to provide more seating space (by moving the tension members to the outside edge) and increase user comfort (by making the contact area a wider strip of material instead of a chain).
Sullivan nor Miller teach that the cross member comprises a hinge assembly embedded in the first fabric structure, foldable to collapse the convertible chair along longitudinal axis of the convertible chair. Nelson teaches a foldable seating frame which comprises:
a seat portion 104 comprising a first fabric structure 130 defining a seat,
a first pair of structural members 116 embedded in the first fabric structure and cooperating to define a boundary of the seat, and
a hinge assembly 116, 122 embedded in the first fabric structure and fixed to each structural member of the first pair of structural members;
wherein, in a first open configuration (figure 1), the hinge assembly defines a rigid bridge between the first pair of structural members that is configured to maintain the seat in the first open configuration, and
in a second stowed configuration (figure 2, 3), the hinge assembly is foldable to collapse the seat chair along longitudinal axis of the seat when unoccupied.
PNG
media_image3.png
307
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
335
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Nelson Figures 1 and 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Sullivan and Miller with the folding hinge assembly as taught by Nelson in order to allow the device to maintain the rigid seating configuration, but still be able to fold without the need to disconnect the cross members.
Neither Sullivan nor Miller teaches that the first leaf defining a first elongated body comprises a first flat surface and a first leg contour and a second leaf defining a second elongated body comprising a second flat surface and a second leg contour. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the leaves contoured of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to save material or provide for enhanced user comfort. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Alternatively, Muraguchi teaches a seat bottom 10 in which the front is shaped into first and second leg contours 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hinge leaves of Sullivan and Miller with leg contours as taught by Muraguchi in order to enhance user comfort and/or encourage better posture.
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nelson also teaches that the hinge assembly comprises:
a first hinge portion,
a second hinge portion, and
wherein the first and second hinge portions are pivotally coupled to one another about a rotational axis 190, and wherein the first and second hinge portions are configured to have a 180° range of motion or less about the rotational axis.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Structural Member)][AltContent: textbox (1st Structural Member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hinge Feature)][AltContent: textbox (Leaf)][AltContent: textbox (Sheath)][AltContent: textbox (1st Hinge Portion)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Hinge Portion)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image5.png
436
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Nelson Figure 7 (annotated)
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Nelson also teaches that:
the first hinge portion comprises
the first leaf 116,
a first hinge feature 180 arranged at a first end of the first leaf, and
a first sheath arranged at a second end of the first leaf opposite the first end, and
the second hinge portion comprises
the second leaf 116,
a second hinge feature 182 arranged at a first end of the second leaf, and
a second sheath arranged at a second end of the second leaf opposite the first end.
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Nelson also teaches that the first sheath is fixed to a first structural member of the first pair of structural members, and the second sheath is fixed to a second structural member of the first pair of structural members.
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Nelson also teaches that each of the first sheath and the second sheath includes a slotted feature configured to receive a respective structural member of the first pair of structural members. Note that as the structural members of Sullivan are flat bars, the corresponding sheaths would comprise a slotted feature.
If applicant does not agree that the receptacles are slots, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the receptacles slotted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to prevent rotation, provide the desired fit or orientation. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Nelson also teaches that each of the first hinge feature 180 and the second hinge feature 182 includes a stop configured to prevent the hinge assembly from having a range of motion of greater than 180°.
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Nelson also teaches that the range of motion extends from the rigid bridge along a path extending away from a rider receiving region of the convertible chair.
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nelson also teaches that the hinge assembly 116, 122 has a hinge assembly width dimension that runs parallel with a rotational axis of the hinge assembly, the first fabric structure 130 has a first fabric structure width dimension that run parallel with the first pair of structural members, and the hinge assembly width dimension is less than half of the first fabric structure dimension.
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sullivan also teaches that:
the first pair of structural members 11, 19 are arranged embedded within the first fabric structure and parallel to one another, the first pair of structural members remaining parallel to one another in each of the first open configuration and the second stowed configuration,
the second pair of structural members 10, 18 are arranged embedded within the second fabric structure and parallel to one another, the second pair of structural members remaining parallel to one another in each of the first open configuration and the second stowed configuration,
in the first open configuration, the first pair of structural members are arranged transverse to the second pair of structural members (see figure 1), and
in the second stowed configuration, the first pair of structural members are arranged parallel to the second pair of structural members.
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sullivan also teaches that the first pair of structural members 11, 19 and the second pair of structural members 10, 18 are each formed from a material having a rigidity greater than a rigidity of either the first fabric structure 21 or the second fabric structure 22.
If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fabric from a soft material for comfort and the structural members from a more rigid material in order to keep the seat’s shape, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Miller also teaches:
a pair of first fasteners 105a, each fastener of the pair of first fasteners attached to a respective seat portion wing 112 of the pair of seat portion wings,
a pair of second fasteners 105b, each fastener of the pair of second fasteners attached to a respective back portion wing 116 of the pair of back portion wings, and
in the open configuration, the pair of seat portion wings is removably coupled with the pair of back portion wings via a removable coupling of corresponding first and second fasteners of the first and second pair of fasteners.
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Miller also teaches that each of the corresponding first and second fasteners 105 define a buckle having a side-release feature that is configured to release the corresponding first and second fasteners upon depression.
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the convertible chair is configured to transition between the first open configuration and the second stowed configuration by first folding the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure toward one another about a seam joining the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure, and subsequent to the first folding, second folding the first and second fabric structures together in half and along a 180° limited range of motion of the hinge assembly.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Beyond JLF Kayak Conversion Kit (hereafter JLF) in view of Sullivan US 1,625,106, Miller US 10,799,027 and Nelson US 10,653,107, and alternatively also in view of Muraguchi US 9,795,218.
Regarding claim 14, JLF teaches a standup paddle board conversion system, the system comprising:
a chair; and
a convertible paddle assembly comprising
a main paddle structure,
a T-handle structure removably couplable to the main paddle structure, and
a secondary paddle structure removably couplable with the main paddle structure.
JLF does not teach the convertible chair of claim 1. As detailed above, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the kit of JLF with the convertible chair as taught by Sullivan, Miller, Nelson and alternatively Muraguchi in order to utilize a structured seat that can be folded for convenient storage when not in use. Note that in the second stowed configuration, the secondary paddle structure is capable of being held within and substantially concealed by the first and second fabric structures.
PNG
media_image6.png
296
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 5- BEYOND JLF Kayak Conversion Kit
Regarding claim 15, JLF, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. JLF also teaches that the secondary paddle structure comprises a secondary paddle, and an attachment fitting integrally connected to the secondary paddle.
Regarding claim 16, JLF, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. JLF does not explicitly teach that the secondary paddle structure defines a receiving slot configured to receive between 4 inches and 6 inches of an end of the main paddle structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the orientation of the slots and tabs in order to achieve the desired paddle feel or adjustment scheme, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the inserted section to project 4-6 inches into the slot in order to achieve the desired engagement, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, JLF, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. JLF also teaches that the convertible paddle assembly is configured to transition between a SUP configuration in which the T-handle is removably coupled to main paddle structure and the secondary paddle structure is held within the convertible chair, and a kayak configuration in which the T-handle is removed from the main paddle structure and the secondary paddle is removably coupled to the main paddle structure.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Beyond JLF Kayak Conversion Kit (hereafter JLF) in view of Sullivan US 1,625,106, Miller US 10,799,027, Nelson US 10,653,107 and Grimes US 8672719, and alternatively also in view of Muraguchi US 9,795,218.
Regarding claim 18, JLF, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. JLF also teaches that the conversion kit is to be used with a standup paddle board, but does not teach netted cargo hold arranged on a top surface of the standup paddle board. Grimes teaches a standup paddleboard which comprises a netted cargo hold arranged on a top surface (column 6, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the kit of JLF, Sullivan, Miller and Nelson with a paddleboard comprising a cargo net as taught by Grimes in order to provide a location to store items when they are not in use. As taught, the convertible chair is stowable within the netted cargo hold in the second stowed configuration.
Regarding claim 19, JLF, Sullivan, Miller, Nelson and Grimes, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such (removing the convertible chair from the netted cargo hold; removing the secondary paddle structure from the convertible chair; replacing the T-handle structure with the secondary paddle structure; unfolding the convertible chair; placing the convertible chair on a portion of the top surface of the standup paddle board; and causing the rider to occupy the seat of the convertible chair) would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 20, JLF, Sullivan, Miller, Nelson and Grimes, together or also in view of Muraguchi, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 19. As taught, the unfolding comprises first unfolding the first and second fabric structures along a 180° limited range of motion of the hinge assembly (as taught by Nelson), and subsequent to the first unfolding, second unfolding the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure away from one another about a seam joining the first fabric structure and the second fabric structure (as taught by Sullivan and Miller).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615