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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/5/2026.
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 18 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, defines “a used configuration and a stowed configuration”, however, Claim 1 which it depends on defines “a used configuration” and “a stowed configuration”. It is unclear if these are different used and stowed configurations or if these are the same used and stowed configurations. As such the claim is indefinite. Claims 4-5 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 9, defines “a used configuration” and “a stowed configuration”, however, Claim 1 which it depends on defines “a used configuration” and “a stowed configuration”. It is unclear if these are different used and stowed configurations or if these are the same used and stowed configurations. As such the claim is indefinite.
Claim 18, defines “a stowed configuration”, however, Claim 10 which it depends on defines “a stowed configuration”. It is unclear if this is a different stowed configuration or not. As such the claim is indefinite.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178).
For Claim 1, the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose a collapsible office chair comprising: a seat post (212) having upper and lower portions, a seat (204) pivotably coupled to the upper portion of the seat post, wherein the seat is pivotably between a generally horizontal use configuration and a stowed configuration that is angled at least 45 degrees from the use configuration; and a leg assembly (214, 216, 218, and 220) comprising a plurality of legs coupled to an extending radially outwardly from the lower portion of the seat post; wherein a first of said legs is selectively repositionable between a used configuration in which said first leg is spaced a first distance away from a second of said legs, and a stowed configuration in which the first leg is spaced a second distance away from the second leg, wherein the second distance is less than the first distance.
For Claim 9, the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose a seat back (202 and 210) including a backrest (202) and a backrest bracket (210); wherein the seat comprises a seat pan and a seat bracket extending downwardly from the seat pan; wherein the backrest bracket is pivotably coupled to the seat backrest; wherein the set back is pivotable between a used configuration in which the backrest is spaced above and laterally away from the seat pan, and a stowed configuration in which the backrest is pivoted at least about 45 degrees toward the set pan; and wherein when the seat and the seat back are in their respective stowed configuration, the seat and the seat back lie fully within a latera footprint defined by respective outermost portion of the plurality of legs.
For Claim 10, the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose a collapsible office chair comprising: a seat post (212) having upper and lower portions; a seat (204) pivotably coupled to the upper portion of the seat post, wherein the seat is pivotably between a use configuration and a stowed configuration; a leg assembly (212, 216, 218, and 220) coupled to the lower portion of the seat post, said leg assembly comprising: a central hub (216); and a plurality of legs extending radially outwardly from the leg mechanism, wherein at least tow of the legs are pivotable between deployed and retracted positions; wherein the leg mechanism is operable to secure the pivotable legs in the deployed position when the seat is in the use configuration, and to permit movement of the pivotable legs to the retracted position when the seat in in the stowed configuration.
For Claim 14, the figures and paragraph [0035] of Riley ‘178 disclose a seatback (202) pivotably coupled to the seat by a four-bar linkage (206 and 208), wherein the four-bar linkage is coupled to the seat post.
For Claim 15, the figures and paragraph [0038] of Riley ‘178 disclose that the four-bar linkage is configured to pivot the seatback forwardly relative to the seat when the seat is moved to the stowed configuration.
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) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avery (US PgPub #2017/0007026).
For Claim 2, while the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose that the seat post has front and back sides located opposite one another, with the first leg located at the front side in the use configuration, and when the first leg is moved away from the used configuration toward the stowed configuration, the first leg is moved from the front side of the seat post in a direction toward the back side it is silent about the chairs center of gravity is offset to the back side of the seat post. However, the figures of Avery ‘026 teach a seat (101) is positioned in a stowed configuration, the chair’s center of gravity is offset to a back side of a seat post (39), and when a first leg (15) is moved away from the seat post in a direction toward the back side. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with the center of gravity of Avery ‘026. The motivation to do so would be to make it easier to switch between a used and stowed position.
For Claim 3, while the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose that the leg assembly comprises four legs including a fourth leg that is selectively repositionable between a used configuration and a stowed configuration it is silent about the second and third legs being non pivotable. However takes Official Notice that it well known in the art and required only one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make some of the legs non-pivotable since the use of a one piece construction would reduce the complexity of the chair and make it easier to fold and unfold the chair. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with static legs as is well known in the art. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the complexity of the chair.
For Claim 6, while Riley ‘178 teaches that the seat is pivotable about a horizontal axis, it is silent about it being laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the seat post. However, the figures of Avery ‘026 teach a collapsible office chair with a seat (101) that is pivotable about a horizontal axis that is laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the support tube (39). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with the offset lateral axis of Avery ‘026. The motivation to do so would be to maximize stability.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178) in view of Avery (US PgPub #2017/0007026) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of He (CN #205041036).
For Claim 7, while the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose that the collapsible office chair comprises a seat post bracket (222) coupled to the upper portion of the seat post, and wherein the seat comprises a seat pan and a seat bracket extending downwardly form the seat pan, it is silent about a pivot pin extending through the seat post bracket; the seat bracket pivotably coupled to the seat post bracket at the pivot pin. However, the figures and paragraphs [0079 and 0080] of He ’036 teaches a seat post bracket (1) coupled to an upper portion of a seat post (upper portion of an air rod is coupled to a hole 37 in the base); and a pivot pin (3) extending through the seat post bracket, wherein a seat comprises a seat pan extending downwardly form the seat pan, the seat bracket pivotably coupled to the seat bracket at the pivot pin. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with the pivot pin of He ‘036. The motivation to do so would be to allow the chair to pivot or recline to make the chair more comfortable.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178) in view of Avery (US PgPub #2017/0007026) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hou (US Patent #5437425).
For Claim 11, while Riley ‘178 is silent about the leg mechanism is operable to secure the seat in the stowed configuration when the pivotably legs are moved to the retracted position, the figures of Hou ‘425 teach a collapsible chair with a central hub portion (1); a leg mechanism (lugs 2) at the central hub portion; wherein the leg mechanism is operable to secure a seat in a stowed configuration when the pivotable legs are moved to a retracted position. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with the ability to secure the seat in the stowed configuration when the legs are moved to the retracted position as taught by Hou ‘425. The motivation to do so would be to selectively lock the legs in a collapsed position which would save space.
For Claim 12, the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose that the leg mechanism is operable to permit the seat to move from the stowed configuration to the use configuration upon movement of the pivotable legs from the retracted position to the extended position.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178) in view of Avery (US PgPub #2017/0007026) and Hou (US Patent #5437425) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Avery (US PgPub #2017/0007026).
For Claim 13, while Riley ‘178 is silent about a plunger, the figures of Avery ‘026 teaches a seat (101) comprising a plunger (11) that engages a leg mechanism when the seat is moved to a stowed configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with the plunger of Avery ‘026. The motivation to do so would be to provide more than one support underneath a seat and thereby maximize a stability of the chair.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US PgPub #2021/0145178) in view of Wang (CN #109567442) and Anderson (US Patent #2597277).
For Claim 18, the figures of Riley ‘178 teach the collapsible office chair of Claim 10, however it is silent about a furniture system. However, figures 1-2 of Wang ‘442 teach a work furniture system comprising a collapsible chair (1), and desk (2) having a top portion, a pair of spaced apart upright supports extending downwardly form the top portion and a work surface coupled between the upright supports, wherein the work surface cooperates with the upright supports and the top portion to define a chair storage area that is sixed and shaped to receive the collapsible office chair when the seat is in the stowed configuration and the movable legs are in the retracted position. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with a desk that defines a storage space for a collapsible desk as taught by Wang ‘442. The motivation to do so would be to provide a furniture system that saves space.
While Riley ‘178 in view of Wang ‘442 teach a furniture system with a desk, it is silent about the desk having a movable work surface. However, figures 1-3 of Anderson ‘277 teach a movable work surface (22) that is supported by upright supports. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 in view of Wang ‘442 with the movable work surface of Anderson ‘277. The motivation to do so would be to provide greater work surface while allowing for a smaller furniture system.
For Claim 19, the figures of Riley ‘178 disclose a collapsible chair comprising: a seat post; a seat pivotably coupled to an upper portion of the seat post; a seatback pivotable relative the seat; and a plurality of legs coupled to a lower portion of the seat post; wherein the seat and the seatback are pivotable between a use configuration and a stowed configuration. While Riley ‘178 discloses a collapsible chair it is silent about it being used in a furniture system. However, figures 1-2 of Wang ‘442 teach a work furniture system comprising a collapsible chair (1), and desk (2) having a top portion, a pair of spaced apart upright supports extending downwardly form the top portion and a work surface coupled between the upright supports, wherein the work surface cooperates with the upright supports and the top portion to define a chair storage area that is sixed and shaped to receive the collapsible office chair when the seat is in the stowed configuration and the movable legs are in the retracted position. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with a desk that defines a storage space for a collapsible desk as taught by Wang ‘442. The motivation to do so would be to provide a furniture system that saves space.
While Riley ‘178 in view of Wang ‘442 teach a furniture system with a desk, it is silent about the desk having a movable work surface. However, figures 1-3 of Anderson ‘277 teach a movable work surface (22) that is supported by upright supports. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 in view of Wang ‘442 with the movable work surface of Anderson ‘277. The motivation to do so would be to provide greater work surface while allowing for a smaller furniture system.
For Claim 20, while Riley ‘178 discloses the plurality of legs comprise at least four legs extending radially outward relative to the lower potion of the seat post; and at least two of the legs are pivotable between a retracted position in which the pivotable legs are closer to respective ones of the other two legs and an extended position in which the pivotable legs are spaced further from the other two legs. However takes Official Notice that it well known in the art and required only one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make some of the legs non-pivotable since the use of a one piece construction would reduce the complexity of the chair and make it easier to fold and unfold the chair. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riley ‘178 with static legs as is well known in the art. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the complexity of the chair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 3/31/2026