DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment filed on 9/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett (US patent 4,597,119) in view of Hernandez (US patent 8,123,291).
Regarding claim 1, Padgett discloses a rotating chaise lounge assembly configured for being electrically rotated, the assembly comprising: a lounge chair (11) having a top side, a bottom side, a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge, a front edge, and rear edge; a base assembly being attached to and extending downwardly from the bottom side, the base assembly being positionable on a ground surface to support the lounge chair above the ground surface, the base assembly including: an upper mount (70) being attached to the bottom side; a lower mount (74) being rotatably engaged to the upper mount; and a drive assembly (67) being mechanically engaged with the upper mount to selectively rotate the upper mount and the lounge chair relative to the lower mount; and a power source (79) being electronically coupled to the drive assembly.
Padgett does not disclose a misting device being coupled to the lounge chair, the misting device being configured to expel a fluid under pressure over the top side, the misting device including: a reservoir being configured to hold the fluid; a pump being fluidly coupled to the reservoir, the pump being configured to receive and to pressurize the fluid; a hose being fluidly coupled to the pump; and a nozzle being fluidly coupled to the hose, the nozzle dispensing the fluid when the fluid is pressurized, the nozzle being directed forwardly relative to the top side of the lounge chair and being positioned on the second lateral edge proximate to the front edge wherein the nozzle is configured to dispense the fluid toward an upper body of the user.
Hernandez teaches a lounge assembly comprising: a misting device (45) being coupled to the lounge chair, the misting device being configured to expel a fluid under pressure over the top side, the misting device including: a reservoir (56) being configured to hold the fluid; a pump (75, 90) being fluidly coupled to the reservoir, the pump being configured to receive and to pressurize the fluid; a hose (80) being fluidly coupled to the pump; and a nozzle (50) being fluidly coupled to the hose, the nozzle dispensing the fluid when the fluid is pressurized, the nozzle being directed forwardly relative to the top side of the lounge chair and being positioned on the second lateral edge proximate to the front edge wherein the nozzle is configured to dispense the fluid toward an upper body of the user (Fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a misting device in view of Hernandez’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for cooling the user of the lounger.
Regarding claim 4, Padgett, as modified, teaches a rotating chaise lounge assembly, the base assembly further comprising a support element (25) being coupled to and extending downwardly from the lower mount.
Regarding claim 9, Padgett, as modified, teaches an assembly wherein the nozzle of the misting device is a misting nozzle (Hernandez: 50).
Claim(s) 2, 3, & 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez (US patent 8,123,291) and Dorsainvil et al. (US patent 10,925,405) (hereinafter Dorsainvil).
Regarding claim 2, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified does not disclose an assembly, the lounge chair further comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section of being between the first and third sections, the third section including the rear edge and the first section including the front edge. Dorsainvil teaches a chaise assembly comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section of being between the first and third sections, the third section including the rear edge and the first section including the front edge (Fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett wherein lounge chair further comprising a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section of being between the first and third sections, the third section including the rear edge and the first section including the front edge in view of Dorsainvil’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known lounge chair with another known lounge chair.
Regarding claim 3, Padgett, as modified, teaches an assembly wherein each of the first and third sections is pivotably coupled to the second section (Dorsainvil: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified, does not teach an assembly further comprising a wireless speaker assembly being coupled to the lounge chair and being configured to wirelessly communicate with an external electronic device. Dorsainvil teaches an assembly further comprising a wireless speaker assembly (36) being coupled to the lounge chair and being configured to wirelessly communicate with an external electronic device. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a wireless speaker in view of Dorsainvil’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for playing music.
Regarding claim 13, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified, does not teach an assembly further comprising a power outlet being mounted on the lounge chair and being electronically coupled to the power source. Dorsainvil teaches an assembly further comprising a power outlet (38). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a power outlet in view of Dorsainvil’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for charging devices.
Regarding claim 14, Padgett, as modified, teaches an assembly, the power outlet further comprising one or more USB power outlets (Dorsainvil: 38).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez and Strolka-Echols et al. (US patent 9,339,114) (hereinafter Strolka-Echols).
Regarding claim 5, Padgett, as modified, teaches a rotating chaise lounge assembly, the drive assembly further comprising: an electric motor (65) including a drive shaft (the motor will inherently have a drive shaft) in communication with the upper mount (Figs. 11-13).
Padgett does not disclose a central processing unit being electronically coupled to the electric motor; and a receiver for receiving wireless signals being electrically coupled to the central processing unit. Strolka-Echols teaches an assembly comprising a central processing unit being electronically coupled to the electric motor; and a receiver for receiving wireless signals being electrically coupled to the central processing unit (Col. 8: 35-38). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a central processing unit being electronically coupled to the electric motor; and a receiver for receiving wireless signals being electrically coupled to the central processing unit in view of Strolka-Echols’ teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for controlling the motor.
Regarding claim 6, Padgett, as modified, teaches an assembly, the power source being selected from the group comprising: a power cord being coupled to the electric motor, the power cord extending outwardly through the lower mount, the power cord being configured to receive an alternating current power source; a battery (79) being coupled to the electric motor; or a solar panel being electronically coupled to the electric motor. Padgett, as modified, does not teach the battery being rechargeable. Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s taking of OFFICIAL NOTICE that rechargeable batteries are common and well known in the art this has become admitted prior art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett, as previously modified, to comprise a rechargeable battery, because this arrangement would have replaced one known battery with another known battery.
Regarding claim 7, Padgett, as modified, teaches an assembly, further comprising a remote (Strolka-Echols: 42) being in wireless communication with the receiver to actuate the electric motor in a first direction, a second direction, or a stationary condition.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez and Chen (US patent 4,862,530).
Regarding claim 10, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified, does not teach an assembly, further comprising a pillow being coupled to the lounge chair adjacent to the front edge. Chen teaches a lounge assembly comprising a pillow (9). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a pillow in view of Chen’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for comforting a users head.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez and Edelman (US patent 10,633,911).
Regarding claim 11, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified, does not teach an assembly, further comprising a fan being coupled to the lounge chair and being directable toward the top side. Edelman teaches a lounge assembly comprising a fan (Col. 5: 65). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett, as previously modified, to comprise a fan in view of Edelmans’ teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for cooling the user of the lounger.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez and Pizzuto (US patent 8,002,349).
Regarding claim 15, Padgett, as modified, teaches the assembly as claimed. Padgett, as modified, does not teach an assembly, further comprising a cup holder being coupled to the lounge chair Pizzuto teaches a lounge assembly comprising a cup holder (62). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Padgett to comprise a cup holder in view of Pizzuto’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for holding a users beverage.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett in view of Hernandez, Dorsainvil, Strolka-Echols, Edelman, Chen and Pizzuto.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites similar features to those that are recited in claims 1-7 & 9-15 and the claim is rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 16 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive because Edelman does not teach a misting device comprising the features recited in amended claims 1 & 16. Therefore, the original rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Padgett and Hernandez wherein Hernandez teaches the features of the misting device which are recited in amended claims 1 & 16.
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 DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637