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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6193307 issued to Lin in view of U.S. Publication No. 20130127223 issued to Lin (2).
Regarding claim 1,
Lin discloses a foldable chair, (Lin: FIG. 1 (10)) comprising: two front leg pipes symmetrically arranged in a left and right direction, (Lin: FIG. 1 (11)) two rear leg pipes symmetrically arranged in the left and right direction, (Lin: FIG. 1 (12)) and a seat plate, (Lin: FIG. 1 (13)) wherein: two sides of the seat plate are connected to the two front leg pipes and the two rear leg pipes, Lin: FIG. 1 (12) is connected to the seat plate) … the two front leg pipes are arranged obliquely when the foldable chair is in an open use state, (Lin: FIG. 1) … an insert member is configured to move in a radial direction to connect the corresponding one of the two front leg pipes and the outer sleeve in series, an inner end of the insert member extends inward and toward a corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate, the inner end of the insert member is connected to the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate, or the inner end of the insert member is connected to the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate through a sliding sleeve, and part of weight borne by the seat plate is transmitted to the corresponding one of the two front leg pipes and the outer sleeve through the outer sleeve. (Lin: FIG. 2 (15, 25) are insert members that connect to the seat plate)
Lin does not appear to disclose each of the two front leg pipes is sleeved with an outer sleeve located at a position at which a corresponding one of the two front leg pipes is connected to the seat plate,
However, Lin (2) discloses each of the two front leg pipes is sleeved with an outer sleeve located at a position at which a corresponding one of the two front leg pipes is connected to the seat plate, (Lin (2): FIG. 1 (141) see also [0016] “Each rear leg 14 is connected with the seat 11 through a large support piece 141, which can reinforce the overall structure.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin directed to a chair by adding an outer sleeve as taught in Lin (2) directed to a chair since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of reinforcing the legs.
Regarding claim 7,
Lin in view of Lin (2) discloses the foldable chair according to claim 1.
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman does not appear to disclose wherein: a length from an upper opening of the outer sleeve to the insert member is shorter than a length from a lower opening of the outer sleeve to the insert member.
However, the federal circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Regarding claim 8,
Lin discloses a reinforcement structure for a leg pipe, wherein: the leg pipe is arranged obliquely, (Lin: FIG. 1 (12)) an insert member is inserted radially on the leg pipe, (Lin: FIG. 2 (15, 25) … an inner end of the insert member is directly or indirectly connected to an object-bearing member, and part of weight of the object-bearing member is transmitted to the leg pipe and the outer sleeve through the insert member. (Lin: FIG. 1, the seat plate i.e. may be interpreted as the object-bearing member)
Lin does not appear to disclose an outer sleeve is sleeved at a position of the insert member on the leg pipe, the leg pipe and the outer sleeve are connected in series by the insert member,
However, Lin (2) discloses an outer sleeve is sleeved at a position of the insert member on the leg pipe, the leg pipe and the outer sleeve are connected in series by the insert member, (Lin (2): FIG. 1 (141) see also [0016] “Each rear leg 14 is connected with the seat 11 through a large support piece 141, which can reinforce the overall structure.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin directed to a chair by adding an outer sleeve as taught in Lin (2) directed to a chair since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of reinforcing the legs.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6193307 issued to Lin in view of U.S. Publication No. 20130127223 issued to Lin (2) further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20070236054 issued to Bateman.
Regarding claim 2,
Lin in view of Lin (2) discloses the foldable chair according to claim 1.
Lin in view of Lin (2) does not appear to disclose wherein: the insert member is a rivet, and the seat plate is configured to be rotated around the insert member.
However, Bateman discloses wherein: the insert member is a rivet, and the seat plate is configured to be rotated around the insert member. (Bateman: [0029] “Another bolt, rivet, or other such element 66 also extends through each of the holes 49 in the second support frame 40 and an aligned hole 55 in the seat frame 52 to pivotally secure each of the side legs 42 to the seat frame. Connecting a first support frame leg 32, a second support frame leg 42, one of the hinge links 60, and a side of the seat frame 52 together in this way produces a roughly trapezoidal lateral link 70 as shown in FIG. 1.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Lin (2) directed to a chair by making the fastener a rivet as taught in Bateman directed to a chair since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of preventing the loosening of the insert members overtime due to vibrations.
Regarding claim 3,
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman discloses the foldable chair according to claim 2, wherein: the insert member is configured to enable the corresponding one of the two front leg pipes, the outer sleeve, and the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate to be connected together in series. (Lin (2): The examiner notes that when the sleeve is combined with Lin, the result is two sides of the seat plates and the leg pipes connected together in series.)
Regarding claim 6,
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman discloses the foldable chair according to claim 2, wherein: the inner end of the insert member is slidably connected to the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate through the sliding sleeve. (Lin: FIGS. 1-2)
Regarding claim 9,
Lin in view of Lin (2) discloses the reinforcement structure for a leg pipe according to claim 8.
Lin in view of Lin (2) does not appear to disclose wherein: the insert member is a rivet.
However, Bateman discloses wherein: the insert member is a rivet, and the seat plate is configured to be rotated around the insert member. (Bateman: [0029] “Another bolt, rivet, or other such element 66 also extends through each of the holes 49 in the second support frame 40 and an aligned hole 55 in the seat frame 52 to pivotally secure each of the side legs 42 to the seat frame. Connecting a first support frame leg 32, a second support frame leg 42, one of the hinge links 60, and a side of the seat frame 52 together in this way produces a roughly trapezoidal lateral link 70 as shown in FIG. 1.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Lin (2) directed to a chair by making the fastener a rivet as taught in Bateman directed to a chair since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of preventing the loosening of the insert members overtime due to vibrations.
Regarding claim 10,
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman discloses the reinforcement structure for a leg pipe according to claim 9, wherein: the insert member is configured to enable the leg pipe, the outer sleeve, and the object-bearing member to be connected together in series. (Lin (2): The examiner notes that when the sleeve is combined with Lin, the result is two sides of the seat plates and the leg pipes connected together in series.)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6193307 issued to Lin in view of U.S. Publication No. 20130127223 issued to Lin (2) further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20070236054 issued to Bateman further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5154382 issued to Hoshino.
Regarding claim 4,
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman discloses the foldable chair according to claim 3.
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman does not appear to disclose wherein: a gasket is disposed between the outer sleeve and the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate, and the insert member is configured to pass through the gasket.
However, Hoshino discloses wherein: a gasket is disposed between the outer sleeve and the corresponding one of the two sides of the seat plate, and the insert member is configured to pass through the gasket. (Hoshino: FIG. 1 shows gaskets (30, 40, 19 and 51) disposed between each support device that is intended to be connected)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman directed to a chair by adding a gasket as taught in Hoshino directed to an angle adjusting device since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of protecting the support surfaces of the legs and seat plate so that it does not compromise the surfaces of the these supports.
Regarding claim 5,
Lin in view of Lin (2) in view of Bateman in view of Hoshino discloses the foldable chair according to claim 4, wherein: the gasket has a shape other than flat. (Hoshino: FIG. 1 shows a washer which is not a flat shape)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673