DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 3/19/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-21 have been examined.
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) 1-8, 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 2020/0223333) (“Mason”) in view of Yu (CN 108045279). Mason teaches an anti-skipping device, comprising: a pair of fixed bases (fig. 2: 126), each fixed base having at least two insertion slots (fig. 2: 128) arranged in a longitudinal range; an extension member (fig. 2: 120) movably inserted on the fixed bases and being movable between an extended position and a retracted position in respect to the fixed bases; and a locking member (fig. 2: 122) configured to engage with the extension member and one of the insertion slots, so as to lock a position of the extension member in respect to the fixed bases. Mason does not teach a crossbar disposed between two side walls of the fixed bases and within the longitudinal range of the insertion slots, to prevent the two side walls from being laterally displaced from each other.
However, Yu teaches a pair of fixed bases (fig. 5: base panels show by letter R including two elongated insertion slots; shown below); an extension member within the slots (fig. 4: rods 32) and a crossbar disposed between two side walls of the fixed bases and within the longitudinal range of the insertion slots, to prevent the two side walls from being laterally displaced from each other (at least the rear crossbar shown below). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provides a crossbar between the fixed bases underneath the insertion slots of Mason in order to provide the desired support between the sidewalls.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 2, Mason, as modified, teaches wherein: each of the fixed bases has three insertion slots arranged in the longitudinal range (Mason, fig. 2: 128 shows 3 slots).
As concerns claim 4, Mason, as modified, teaches wherein: a length of one portion of the crossbar between the two side walls is greater than a length of another portion of the crossbar inserted inside each of the side walls (Yu, fig. 4: the length of the portion of the crossbar extending between the side walls is greater than the portion inserted into the walls). Mason, as modified, does not teach a diameter of the crossbar is approximately one tenth of a length of vertical edges of the side walls. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try this relative diameter in order to provide the desired amount of structural support between the sidewalls.
As concerns claims 5 and 16, Mason, as modified, does not expressly teach wherein: both ends of the crossbar are respectively inserted into outer sides of the two side walls, and are fastened to the two side walls by fixed stoppers on the outer sides to prevent a lateral displacement of the two side walls away from each other. However, the rear crossbar of Yu does not show any internal connection of the crossbar to the inside wall of the fixed base and appears to show a darkened portion extending outward from the exterior fixed base. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide any of a known set of fasteners to hold the end of the crossbar relative to the exterior face of the fixed base.
As concerns claims 6 and 17, Mason, as modified, teaches wherein: the crossbar is arranged at a position where one side of the extension member does not interfere with a movement of the extension member (Yu teaches the crossbar positioned below the insertion slots to not interfere with movement of the movable element).
As concerns claims 7 and 18, Mason, as modified, teaches a casing (fig. 3: 120D) fixed to the extension member and located between the crossbar and the extension member; and plug passing slots provided respectively at both sides of the casing and matched with the insertion slots (fig. 3: shown on 120D through which 124 extend to lock into slots 128); wherein if the insertion slots are aligned with the plug passing slots, the locking member is inserted into both the insertion slots and the plug passing slots, such that a position of the extension member is fixed in respect to the fixed bases.
As concerns claims 8 and 19, Mason, as modified, teaches wherein: the locking member is located on a side of the extension member facing the crossbar, and has a handle (figs. 1, 2: 130) and two symmetrically arranged arms (fig. 2: arms having slots 130A), the two arms respectively extend from the handle toward the two side walls of the fixed bases, and ends of the two arms are respectively provided with plugs (fig. 2: ends of 124), and if the insertion slots are aligned with the plug passing slots, the plugs are inserted into both the insertion slots and the plug passing slots.
As concerns claim 15, Mason, as modified, teaches a foot pedal (fig. 4: 120); and the anti-skipping device according to claim 1; wherein the foot pedal is wrapped on the extension member of the anti-skipping device.
As concerns claim 21, Mason, as modified, teaches a seat part (fig. 1: 108A); and the seat footrest device according to claim 15; wherein the foot pedal of the seat footrest device and the anti-skipping device are located below the seat part; the fixed bases of the anti-skipping device are fixed to a bottom side of the seat part, the longitudinal direction is a front-rear direction of the seat part, and the transverse direction is a left-right direction of the seat part; if the extension member is in the extended position, the foot pedal protrudes from a bottom side of the seat part to a front of the seat part (fig. 4); if the extension member is in the retracted position, the foot pedal is at least partially located below the bottom side of the seat part; and the handle of the locking member of the anti-skipping device is exposed below the foot pedal (as shown in fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9-14 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of Mason and Yu fail to teach
wherein: for each of the fixed bases, a transverse cross-section of each side wall is substantially a right-angled triangle, a long right-angled side fits a bottom side of a seat part, a short right-angled side extends downward from the bottom side of the seat part, an oblique side faces a front and lower side of the seat part, the crossbar is positioned in a triangular area formed by the right-angled triangle below the insertion slots, and at about the first third of a longitudinal length of the s-ide-wall long right-angled side and close to a lower side hypotenuse of the side wall; or
wherein the two arms are arc-shaped components which are bent to extend in approximately a quarter-circle arc respectively from the lateral middle position of the handle toward the two side walls.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the rear crossbar of Yu is located closed to the back wall than a rear end of the insertion slot and is therefore located outside the longitudinal range of the insertion slot. The Office disagrees. As shown by Applicant’s annotated drawing, the vertical line delineating the end of the insertion slot appears to touch/intersect the crossbar and is therefore, at least partially, within the longitudinal range of the insertion slot. Further, assuming arguendo, that the crossbar falls slightly outside the longitudinal range of the insertion slot, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, when applying the teaching of support crossbars to provide stability to the side walls, to try a location near to, but not exactly, the location shown by Yu based on the shape of the walls or internal components of Mason.
Applicant further argues that if Yu’s rear crossbar is applied to Mason, it still cannot effectively prevent the two side walls far away from Yu's rear crossbar from being laterally displaced from each other. The Office disagrees, the crossbar of Yu connects the two side walls. Although the arrows are pointing to the front portion of the side walls (which is why Examiner believes Applicant is noting that they are “far away”), the side walls of both Yu and Mason are unitary structures extending the length of the base and inclusion of the crossbar assists in preventing lateral displacement of the walls.
Applicant additionally argues that “the slots in the two side walls connected to the rear crossbar of Yu are not used for positioning, and there is no issue like the skipping problem mentioned in this application. Thus, Yu's rear crossbar does not and cannot the skipping problem.” The slots in the side walls of Yu being used for positioning or not is irrelevant to the combination provided, as the Yu reference is merely being cited for teaching a crossbar between two side walls of a fixed base in a longitudinal range of slots. The purposes of the slots in Yu is not being used in the combination. Further, there is no express recitation of the skipping problem addressed by the application provided in the claim which the crossbar of Yu does not address.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights