:30DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-6 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The “deformable continuous convex bottom surface” and “said base has a slotted surface having a first portion…and a second portion” are not disclosed in the original specification.
Claims 3-6 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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 and 3-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is amended to disclose “a slotted surface having a first portion….and a second portion”, but the disclosure sets forth the “first portion” and “second portion” as being elements 18 and 20 which are claimed in lines 7-8 of the instant claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “carp (Previously presented) et” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “said slide 10 is at least be 5 inches” appears to be a typographical error. 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderman, U.S. Patent 5,782,444 in view of Podgorski, U.S. Patent 5,988,574.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Anderman teaches:
a furniture leg (14) connecting surface configured to be removably connected to the
furniture leg of the furniture item; and
a base (12/20) having a first portion (12) extending from said furniture leg connecting surface and a second portion (20) comprising a deformable continuous convex bottom surface (fig. 2, Col 3, Lns 20-25), wherein said second portion is configured to cooperate with at least one other identical slide under dynamic weight shifting conditions to permit lateral movement across a soft subsurface (Abstract), and wherein said leg connecting surface includes a rigid member having a detent surface to be received within an axial bore within the leg (Col 2, Lns 35-43) and a head (see below) for connection to said base.
Anderman does not teach:
said base has a slotted surface having a first portion for receiving the head and a second portion normal to the first portion wherein the head is rotated to be received into a secured position therein.
Podgorski teaches a similar device with:
a base (14) has a slotted surface having a first portion (38) for receiving the head and a second portion (48) normal to the first portion wherein the head is rotated to be received into a secured position therein (see head 13, element 24).
Insofar as the claim is understood, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Anderman with the teachings of Podgorski because that would permit changing out of the base as needed to accommodate wear-and-tear over the life of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, although neither of the prior arts explicitly discuss the use of a plurality of slides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of the slides because that would be necessary to balance the furniture and prevent the furniture itself from contacting the floor (a minimum of three slides is necessary). The remaining limitations regarding the behavior of the convex bottom surface are taught by Anderman (see Col 3, Lns 34-50).
Regarding Claim 4, Anderman explicitly teaches a slide for use on carpet (see Abstract, see Col 3, Lns 34-50), but is silent with regard to the “chair” as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the slides of Anderman and Podgorski on a chair because chairs are a common piece of furniture and providing slides for chairs would increase the marketability of the product.
Regarding Claim 5, Anderman teaches the product being intended for use on carpets and accommodating heavy weights (see Col 3, Lns 1-10 and 34-50) which is interpreted to meet the limitation “sufficient diameter and surface to support he chair and a person sitting thereon” because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 6, Anderman and Podgorski are silent with regard to the specific dimensions claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the claimed dimensions because the claimed dimensions appear appropriate for use with chairs occupied by humans. Furthermore, the prior art discloses a similar mode of operation and problem solved and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677