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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/427,856 filed on 1/31/2024.
Currently, claims 1-15 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2024 and 2/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the distance from a connecting point between the second footrest link and the footrest member to the footrest plate mounting surface is less than from a connecting point between the first footrest link and the footrest member to the footrest plate mounting surface; and a leg angled retracting device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means of the leg link in claim 8 or means of a connecting rod in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 are 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.
Re claim 1, last line; a conditional phrase “when” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because "when" is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C). Claims 2-5 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Claim 2, line 2; claim 6, line 14; claim 7, line 3; claim 11, lines 15, 18; claim 12, line 9; claim 13, line 3; claim 15, line 2; having the same issues as mentioned; therefore, claims 2, 6-15 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 2018/0242740 to Lawson.
Re claim 1: Lawson discloses in Figs. 1-3, a device for retracting seat leg at angle, comprising a leg assembly (see Fig. 3) hinged at 104/90 to a front end of a seat frame mount 48 of a seat (par. [0022]); the leg assembly comprises a footrest driving link 86, a footrest driven link 100, a first footrest link 92, a second footrest link 106, and a footrest member 96, wherein the footrest driving link 86 and the footrest driven link 100 are hinged 104/90 to a front end of the seat frame mount 48 respectively, an end of the first footrest link 92 is hinged 94 to the footrest driving link 86, an opposite end of the first footrest link 92 is hinged 98 to an end of the footrest member 96, an end of the second footrest link 106 is hinged 108 to the footrest driven link 100, and an opposite end of the second footrest link 106 is hinge110 d to a middle of the footrest member 96 (see Fig. 3); and the footrest member 96 comprises a footrest plate mounting surface (i.e. wherein 96 points to, Fig. 3) used to mount a footrest plate, wherein the footrest plate mounting surface is retracted below the seat frame mount 48 and is oblique with respect to a horizontal plane when the leg assembly is retracted to a limit position (Fig. 2).
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) 2, 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 20180242740 to Lawson.
Re claim 2: Lawson discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein an included angle between the footrest plate mounting surface and a horizontal plane is 20°-26° when the leg assembly is retracted to a limit position. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the footrest plate mounting surface in relation with a horizontal plane to have angle ranges from 20-26-degrees for providing unobstructed space when the footrest plate mounting surface is unused.
Re claim 3: wherein a distance from a connecting point between the second footrest link 106 and the footrest member 96 to the footrest plate mounting surface (wherein 96 points to, Fig. 3) is less than a distance from a connecting point between the first footrest link 92 and the footrest member 96 to the footrest plate mounting surface (wherein 96 points to, i.e. since the 92 is longer than the 106 in length).
Re claims 6, 7: Lawson discloses a seat support, comprising a seat frame mount 48, a seat linkage assembly (Fig. 3), a driving connecting member 30, and a leg angled retracting device, wherein the leg angled retracting device comprises a leg assembly (Fig. 3) hinged 104/90 to a front end of a seat frame mount 48 of a seat (par. [0022]), the seat linkage assembly is rotatably connected below the seat frame mount 48, and the driving connecting member 30 is connected to an end of the seat linkage assembly distal to the leg angled retracting device (Fig. 3); the leg assembly comprises a footrest driving link 86, a footrest driven link 100, a first footrest link 92, a second footrest link 106, and a footrest member 96, wherein the footrest driving link 86 and the footrest driven link 100 are hinged 104/90 to a front end of the seat frame mount 48 respectively, an end of the first footrest link 92 is hinged 94 to the footrest driving link 86, an opposite end of the first footrest link 92 is hinged 98 to an end of the footrest member 96, an end of the second footrest link 106 is hinged 108 to the footrest driven link 100, and an opposite end of the second footrest link 106 is hinged 110 to a middle of the footrest member 96; the footrest member 96 comprises a footrest plate mounting surface (wherein 96 points to, Fig. 3) used to mount a footrest plate, wherein the footrest plate mounting surface 96 is retracted below the seat frame mount 48 and is oblique with respect to a horizontal plane when the leg assembly is retracted to a limit position; an interior side of the seat frame mount 48 is provided with a mounting platform (wherein 48 points to, Fig. 4), wherein a height of the mounting platform is lower than an upper edge of the seat frame mount 48, and a plane where the mounting platform is positioned is a seat frame mounting surface (near 48). Lawson discloses basic structures for the claimed invention as stated but does not disclose expressly a vertical distance H1 between a highest point where the seat frame mount is positioned on the seat frame mounting surface and a lowest point of the driving connecting member is not greater than 270 mm or wherein a vertical distance H2 between a highest point where the seat frame mount is positioned on the seat frame mounting surface and a highest point of the footrest plate mounting surface is not greater than 50 mm when the seat support is retracted to a limit position. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different heights between the highest point of the seat frame is positioned on the seat frame mounting surface and a lowest point of the driving connecting member is not greater than 270mm or wherein a vertical distance H2 between a highest point where the seat frame mount is positioned on the seat frame mounting surface and a highest point of the footrest plate mounting surface is not greater than 50 mm when the seat support is retracted to a limit position in order accommodate different user heights since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 8-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale