DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 18, the language “providing a backpack chair device comprised of a backpack body comprised of a chair assembly comprised of a backrest, a seat, and a leg” is confusing because it is not clear what elements are part of what other elements. It is recommended that this be amended to read “providing a backpack chair device comprised of a backpack body and a chair assembly, the chair assembly comprised of a backrest, a seat, and a leg”.
Claims 19-20 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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.
REJECTION BASED ON TALAVERA
Claim(s) 1 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Published Application 2012/0067930 to Talavera.
Regarding claim 1, Talavera discloses a backpack chair device comprising: a backpack body (44); and a chair assembly attached to a back area of the backpack body (Figs. 1-2), the chair assembly comprised of a backrest (36), a seat (24), and a leg (50 or 53).
Regarding claim 6, Talavera discloses wherein the chair assembly removably attaches to the backpack body (Figs. 1, 4A-B; via 62, 64).
Regarding claim 7, Talavera discloses wherein the backpack body is comprised of a strap (Fig. 4B, top strap on 44).
Regarding claim 8, Talavera discloses wherein the backpack body is comprised of a pocket (main, internal pocket in 44).
Regarding claim 9, Talavera discloses wherein the backpack body is comprised of a handle (46).
REJECTION BASED ON JONES
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-11, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 10,820,682 to Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a backpack chair device comprising: a backpack body (88); and a chair assembly attached to a back area of the backpack body (Fig. 2), the chair assembly comprised of a backrest (82), a seat (80), and a leg (48).
Regarding claim 2, Jones discloses wherein the seat attaches to the backrest via a first hinge (38).
Regarding claim 4, Jones discloses wherein the leg attaches to the seat via a second hinge (unnumbered hinge connecting leg to seat in Figs. 5-6; see Col. 3, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses a backpack chair device comprising: a backpack body (88); and a chair assembly attached to a back area of the backpack body (Fig. 2), the chair assembly comprised of a backrest (82), a seat (80) attached to the backrest via a first hinge (38), and a telescopic leg (48) attached to the seat via a second hinge (unnumbered hinge connecting leg to seat in Figs. 5-6; see Col. 3, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 11, Jones discloses wherein the telescopic leg is comprised of a locking member (58/62).
Regarding claim 14, Jones discloses wherein the chair assembly removably attaches to the backpack body (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 16, Jones discloses wherein the backpack body is comprised of a pocket (94).
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) 3, 5, 12-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of US Patent 9,737,145 to Butler.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 12-13, Jones fails to disclose a locking hinge. However, Butler discloses a portable chair that includes a locking hinge (46/82, 48/86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a hinge lock in Jones to maintain the assembly securely in the deployed and stowed positions.
Regarding claim 18, the combination from claim 3 discloses a method of using a backpack chair device, the method comprising the following steps: providing a backpack chair device comprised of a backpack body (88 – Jones) comprised of a chair assembly comprised of a backrest (82 – Jones), a seat (80 – Jones), and a leg (48 – Jones); unfolding the seat from the backrest and locking the seat into a position (via locking hinge – Butler) wherein a horizontal axis of the seat is perpendicular to a vertical axis of the backrest (Jones Fig. 5); unfolding the leg from the seat and locking the leg (via locking hinge – Butler) into a position wherein a vertical axis of the leg is perpendicular to a horizontal axis of the seat (Fig. 5); and sitting on the chair assembly (purpose of chair).
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the seat attaches to the backrest via a first locking hinge (Jones – 38, as modified by Butler).
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the leg attaches to the seat via a second locking hinge (unnumbered hinge connecting leg to seat in Jones Figs. 5-6; see Jones Col. 3, lines 24-26; modified to be locking by Butler).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of US Patent 8,820,497 to Goldsmith.
Regarding claim 15, Jones fails to disclose a strap. However, Goldsmith discloses a backpack that includes a strap (28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a strap in Jones because it would provide an alternate carrying means for the backpack.
Regarding claim 17, Jones fails to disclose a handle. However, Goldsmith discloses a backpack that includes a handle (28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included a handle in Jones because it would provide an alternate carrying means for the backpack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the claim amendment overcomes the Section 112b rejections (see applicant’s Remarks I), it is noted that no claim amendment was filed. However, the description of the amendment in applicant’s arguments indicates that the amendment would appear to overcome the Section 112b rejection if the amendment is filed.
As to applicant’s argument that Talavera/Jones fail to disclose applicant’s invention (see applicant’s Remarks II), applicant does not point out specific claim language that Talavera/Jones fails to disclose. Any differences between Talavera/Jones and the claimed invention are not captured in the claim language. Applicant’s argument that Talavera operates on a different principle does not overcome the Section 102 rejection because Talavera discloses all of the claimed elements.
As to applicant’s argument that using Butler’s hinge would alter the principle of operation of Jones (see applicant’s Remarks III), the examiner disagrees. The result of the combination would be the same configuration as Jones discloses, with the added benefit of being able to lock the assembly in the stowed and deployed configurations.
As to applicant’s argument that the Jones/Butler combination is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (see applicant’s Remarks III), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the prior art discloses all of the claimed elements, and proper motivation is provided for using Butler’s locking hinge in Jones, namely to allow the configuration to lock in the stowed and deployed positions.
As to applicant’s argument against Jones/Goldsmith (see applicant’s Remarks III), applicant does not point out specific missing claim elements or reasons why the combination is improper.
As to applicant’s argument that applicant’s backpack has unique features (see applicant’s Remarks IV), any differences between applicant’s invention and the prior art are not captured in the claims.
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 SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734