Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/592,504 filed 2/29/24 as a continuation of application serail number 18/235,803, which has issued as U.S. Patent 11,944,199. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 in parent application serial number 17/520,274.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/29/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 driving devices/motors of claims 11-12, 18 and 20 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.
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, 2 (in the first two alternates), 3-12, 13 (in the first two alternates) and 14-20 are 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.
There is inadequate support in the original disclosure for in the lying state, an acute angle exists between an extension direction of the footrest element and the horizontal direction. The original disclosure and claims call for the angle in a range between 9° and 23°. An acute includes angles outside of the range between 9° and 23°. See MPEP 2163.05.
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 1-11 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.
In the last paragraph of claim 1, “ an acute exists…” is unclear. It appears applicant intended to recite “an acute angle” (see claim 12).
In claim 3, “the acute angle” lacks antecedent basis (see above).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matter of the instant claims is included within the patent claims where an angle in the range between 90 and 230 is “an acute angle”.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,452,378. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matter of the instant claims is included within the patent claims where an angle in the range between 90 and 230 is “an acute angle”.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/592,504(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matter of the instant claims is included within the co-pending claims where an angle in the range between 90 and 230 is “an acute angle”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0367652 to Crawford et al.
Crawford provides a mechanical stretching device for a movable seat unit having a backrest 16, a seat 14 and an ottoman or “footrest” 20. A base 202/348/350 supports the device on a ground. Back link 234 is a back mechanism configured to attach to the backrest 16. A pair of mirror image stretching linkages 200 [0052] each including a footrest element 286 attached to a footrest 20. The device includes two cross bars 348/350 to which each of the linkage structures 200 is fixedly connected via two connections 206/256. The stretching device is configured to implement sequential conversions from a sitting state [Figs.16-17] with the footrest element 286 folded below a seating portion to a relaxing state [Figs 18-20] with the footrest element stretched in front and inclined relative to the horizontal and to a lying state [Figs. 21-23] with an increased angle between the backrest and seating portion. Paragraph [0050] recites the seat being at angle relative to the horizontal in the range of 15-26 degrees which overlaps the claimed ranges of claim 4. Paragraph [0066] recites that the angle of inclination ottoman corresponds to that of the seat and the lift of footrest element 286 is further elevated from between four to seven additional inches [converts to 101.6 mm to 177.8 mm]. Fig. 24 also shows the angle of ottomans 20 substantially matching that of seat 14 in the fully reclines position.
Marked up figure 21 below shows an acute angle between the extension direction of the footrest element and the horizontal when in the lying state as well as and a height difference between the highest point of the leg stretching structure and the highest point of the back mechanism exists such that the leg stretching structure that supports the seat unit for a user to place a leg is higher than the highest point of the back mechanism.
The figures show the claimed support elements and rods.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, as paragraph [0066] recites that the angle of inclination ottoman corresponds to that of the seat and paragraph [0050] recites the seat being at angle relative to the horizontal in the range of 15-26 degrees the third alternate condition is met as the ranges overlap.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, the limitation “wherein an angle between the extension direction of the footrest element in the relaxing state and the horizontal direction is less than the acute angle [cl.3] or the angle [cl. 14] between the extension direction of the footrest element in the lying state and the horizontal direction” is clearly illustrated in the marked-up figures below. In accordance with MPEP 2125: drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
615
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 15, paragraph [0050] recites the seat being at angle relative to the horizontal in the range of 15-26 degrees (see marked-up Fig. 18 above).
With respect to claims 5 and 16 , as shown in at least fig. 1, first support element 66 and second support element 28 are pivotally coupled to base coupling component 26.
With respect to claims 6 and 17, plate 48 corresponds to the lateral plate 131 of the application.
With respect to claim 7, element 36 is considered the back coupling component pivotally coupled to the back mechanism 44 and tabs 49/51 are considered the seat coupling element and plate 48 the lateral plate coupling element.
With respect to claim 8, element 90 corresponds to the first connecting rod (31), element 96 corresponds to the second connecting rod (32), element 104 corresponds to the third connecting rod (33), element 110 corresponds to the fourth connecting rod 34 and element 100 corresponds to the first footrest element (35).
With respect to claims 11-12, 18 and 20 see motor 340 and drive links 328.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note:
U.S. 2002/0039558 to Zhang which appears to the teaches second footrest arrangement as called for in claim 9 of the instant application but Zhang does not clearly disclose the last clause of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights