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 .
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 recliner mechanism 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 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.
Claim 19 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 19 line, line 1 recites limitation “recliner mechanism”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 218246406 U Cao, Bin et al.
Regarding claim 1 Cao teaches, a chair comprising a seat, a back, and a pair of side panels (fig. 1), wherein the chair further comprises a receptacle that is located between the side panels and is movable between a first position in which it is located underneath the seat for collecting debris dropped between the seat and side panels and/or between the seat and back, and a second position in which it is accessible for removal of the debris collected thereby (fig. 1, element 10).
Regarding claim 2 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the receptacle is received between opposed inner faces of the side panels (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the receptacle has a width dimension substantially equal to or smaller than the distance between opposed inner faces of the side panels (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the receptacle has substantially the same length as the seat or a greater length than the seat (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10 Cao teaches, A chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the receptacle is slidably received within guides that are fixed to the side panels (fig. 1, element 9).
Regarding claim 12 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein an actuator is provided for moving the receptacle between the first and/or second positions (fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the receptacle comprises a tray (fig. 1, element 10).
Regarding claim 16 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1 wherein the receptacle comprises a handle (element 103), which is accessible by a user at the front of the chair when the receptacle is in the first position (fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 17 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the side panels are fixed to the floor (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, which comprises a recliner chair (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 18, wherein a recliner mechanism for altering the angle of the back of the chair is located under the seat, and the receptacle is located below the recliner mechanism when in the first position (fig. 1).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao as applied to claims above, and further in view of KR 20200041219 A Kim Tae Young et al.
Regarding claim 4, Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 2, nut is silent on, wherein debris deflectors are provided, which each project from a respective one of the inner faces.
However, Kim teaches, wherein debris deflectors are provided (fig. 3, element 2), which each project from a respective one of the inner faces (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair taught by Cao with the deflector taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to direct the rubbish to one area.
Regarding claim 5 Cao as modified teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 4, Kim teaches, wherein each of the debris deflectors comprises an upper face, which extends from a respective one of the inner faces (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6 Cao as modified teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 5, Kim teaches, wherein the upper face slopes down from the inner face (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7 Cao as modified teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 4, wherein the debris deflectors have substantially the same length as the receptacle or a greater length than the receptacle (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6948777 B2 Marshall; Dale R. et al.
Regarding claim 9 Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the receptacle is slidable on the floor.
However Marshall teaches, wherein the receptacle is slidable on the floor (fig. 2, element 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair taught by Cao with the slidable receptacle taught by Marshall with a reasonable expectation of success in order “so that the cart 14 is fully mobile and can be readily pushed from one location to another” (col. 4, lines 22-24).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao.
Regarding claim 15, Cao teaches, a chair as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the receptacle is formed from metal, plastic or wood. Cao discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the receptacle is formed from metal, plastic or wood”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the receptacle of metal, plastic or wood, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cao teaches a seat with lower receptacle and Kim teaches a debris deflector, but they fail to teach “, wherein the guides comprise debris deflectors, which each project from a respective one of opposed inner faces of the side panels”. Cao further fails to teach, “the actuator comprises a piston and/or a motor”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642