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 .
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 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the mating contours" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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, 3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Glockl (US Patent Number 5921628).
Regarding claim 1, Glockl discloses a spring strut for a pendulating chair (it is viewed as such) comprising a central cylindrical middle shaft (10 and/or 11) which is mounted in an axially displaceable manner on a plurality of guide elements (including 12, 13, etc.) in a shaft cage (of at least 6) which can be received in a cylindrical securing sleeve (37) having an inner jacket (at least an inner surface thereof), wherein the guide elements each have a spring body (at least 18, 20) on which resilient support arms (20), each with a lug formed on the support arm (at an edge and/or 18), are provided, and a caster (wheel of 13 for instance) which is mounted rotatably on a shaft (see figures; a bearing as described would at least inherently be rotatable as claimed), wherein the shaft cage, for resilient mounting of the spring bodies, forms respective recesses (at 15; see figures) in each of which a spring body is mounted and the recesses each having an inner edge, and the respective spring body employs clamping of the respective lug of the resilient support arm in an assembled state at an inner edge of a respective one of the recesses of the shaft cage (this is the general arrangement; see at least Figure 4c showing the bodies mounted with clamping based on the shape of the components and elastic features). While Glockl is thus viewed as disclosing the invention as claimed, the rotatable caster may not be explicit. Rotatable bearing components on shafts are old and well-known and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide rotatable casters for the guide elements based on normal variation to ensure proper and smooth operation for a user.
Regarding claim 3, Glockl further discloses the mating contours on the shaft cage which are provided for the purpose of clamping a support arm are each instantiated by an edge at the respective recess that points inward toward the center (this is the general arrangement at least as best understood; see at least Figure 4c).
Regarding claim 5, Glockl further discloses the central shaft has a portion at one end for attachment to or in a pendulum joint (a lower end is arranged in this manner).
Regarding claim 6, Glockl further discloses a respective first set of guide elements is clampingly mounted in recesses that are respectively arranged in the circumferential direction in a first assembly region of the shaft cage, and a second set of guide elements is clampingly mounted in additional recesses which are spaced apart axially from the first assembly region and are respectively arranged in the circumferential direction in a second assembly region that is axially above the first assembly region (there are two sets of axially separated guide elements; see figures).
Regarding claim 7, Glockl further discloses that three or four guide elements are respectively arranged in recesses that are arranged in the circumferential direction on a common mounting plane of the shaft cage at positions with an angular interval of 1200 or 900 (see Figure 4a for instance).
Regarding claim 8, Glockl further discloses the recesses are embodied as openings and the resilient support arms extend through the openings at least with a portion (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 10, Glockl further discloses a pendulating chair comprising a seat part (1) and a foot part (2) on which a pendulum joint is arranged and the spring strut of claim 1, the spring strut being equipped with a coil spring (9) and attached at one end to the pendulum joint (this is the general arrangement).
Claim(s) 4, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glockl.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Glockl discloses an arrangement as explained above including the recesses for receiving a spring body each have a substantially rectangular central opening cross section (at least apparently based on the figures) which is adjoined by two laterally diametrically opposed and circumferentially extending recess regions for receiving the support arms, as well as two support arms on diametrically opposed sides of the spring body are each connected to the same and are arranged within an envelope of an outer jacket of the shaft cage when the spring body is assembled, but may not disclose details of the recess shapes or arc portions. Making components integral and changes in shape of components require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the shapes and arrangements as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and comfort for various users.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Glockl discloses an arrangement structurally as claimed but may not explicitly disclose a method of assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to assemble the device as claimed because the normal assembly would typically include the steps as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Glockl does not disclose guide elements clamped to a shaft cage or having lugs as claimed, and that clamping and assembly of Glockl differs from the invention. However, as explained above, it is maintained that Glockl discloses guide elements as claimed. Initially, it is noted that the design of the invention is quite similar to the arrangement of Glockl while showing a slightly different shape of guide elements (cf. Figures 8 and 9 of the instant application and Figures 3 and 4 of Glockl). Despite Applicant’s arguments, these differences are not captured in the current claim language with Glockl showing guide elements (12, 13, etc.) in a shaft cage (of at least 6) with respective spring bodies of the elements employing clamping of respective lugs (at an edge and/or 18) of resilient support arms (at 20) in an assembled state at an inner edge of a respective one of recesses of the shaft cage (at 15 for instance). That Glockl’s guide elements may contact the sleeve does not change the analysis above. Further, Glockl does not appear to provide a set of method steps for assembly and Applicant’s assessment of the necessity of a particular order of assembly is not persuasive. The claimed assembly would at least be obvious as explained above.
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636