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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because They do not meet Standards for Drawings in 37 CFR 1.84 sections:
(b) Photograph; figures 1-11 contain what appears to be photographs and are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent application.
(e) Type of paper; figures 1-9B contain paper which does not have a white background.
(h) Views; figures 2, 3B, 10 and 11 contain more than 1 view per figure.
(i) Arrangement of views; figures 2, 3B, 10 and 11 contain more than 1 view per figure and or more than one direction of the view per sheet.
(m) Shading; figures 3A, 3B, 9A, 9B, 10 and 11 contain shading which prevents clear understanding of images.
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters; figures 3a-11 contain excessive writing.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation “Li-Ion” should be written in full for first use within the claims lacking a definition within the specification. The term should read -Lithium Ion-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 19-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200214448 A1 Jacobs; Frederick et al. and further in view of US 20190145153 A1 Edelman; Michael.
Regarding claim Jacobs teaches, an outdoor solar powered recliner comprising: a seat main assembly having a seat surface and a back rest assembly; a leg rest below said seat surface (fig. 2C, elements 210c, 226c, 221c, 230c), said leg rest movable with respect to said seat main assembly (fig. 2c); Jacobs teaches a solar panel, but is silent about, a solar panel on said seat main assembly
However Edelman teaches, a solar panel on said seat main assembly (fig. 3c, element 324);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seat taught by Jacobs with the solar panel taught by Edleman with a reasonable expectation of success in order “charge a rechargeable battery” (col. 1, line 50).
Jacobs further teaches, an actuator for manipulating said leg rest (para 0119, “third actuator”); a control panel on said seat main assembly (fig. 5A, element 590) for controlling activation of at least one of a light source and said actuator (para 0119); a circuit board for controlling said actuator (fig. 5b); a battery in communication with at least one of said solar panel, said control panel, said actuator, and said circuit board (fig. 5B, element 596b).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobs as modified teaches, Edelman teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 wherein: said solar panel is located beneath said seat surface (figs. 3A-3C, element 326).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 wherein: said actuator is one of a first actuator and a second actuator affixed to a rear surface of said leg rest (para 0119, multiple actuators).
Regarding claim 19, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 wherein: said battery is located in a cavity within said seat main assembly (fig. 5B, element 596b, is within element 500b, para 0025 “a local user interface mounted in the first chair”).
Regarding claim 20, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 Edelman teaches, wherein: said battery is a Li-Ion battery pack (para 0071).
Regarding claim 21, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 further comprising: a wire harness for connecting said solar panel, said control panel, said actuator, said circuit board, and said battery (fig. 7E, element 700e, para 0134).
Regarding claim 22, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 wherein: said seat main assembly is comprised of treated wood or composite (para 0139 “composite material”).
Regarding claim 25, Jacobs as modified teaches, the recliner according to claim 1 wherein: wherein at least one of said seat surface, a back supporting surface of said back rest assembly, and a leg supporting surface of said leg rest are comprised of mesh textile (para 0139 “wire mesh”).
Note
Additional prior art made of record not relied upon is considered perinate to applicants disclosure: US 20110080284 A1 Nicodem; Harry E., US 20230371723 A1 Ressler; Kyle et al.
Nicodem teaches solar powered outdoor seat and Ressler teaches furniture cover with solar panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims, 2-7, 10-18 and 23-24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art Jacobs teaches solar powered reclinable seats and Edelman teaches, where the solar panel is located on the main seat. However Jacobs fails to teach where a “said back rest assembly pivotally mounted to said rear protrusion of said right seat base and said rear protrusion of said left seat base”, they also to teach the “control panel is affixed to one of a right seat base and a left seat base”, “control panel having at least one switch, and an input for receiving an external charging cord”, and “an input on said seat main assembly, said input in communication with said battery”. There is no motivation to combine these elements with additional prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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 J. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642