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 .
Specification
The use of the terms "Velcro" and "Rubik's Cube", which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 states the limitation “the connecting strips are used to assist in fixing the two side plates”. The limitation is unclear as the limitation states how the connecting strips are being used, rather than claiming the structure itself. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will consider the limitation to read “relative positions of the two side plates are fixed by the connecting strips”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the relative positions" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read “relative positions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as above due to dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe "hook and loop" and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
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, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 218164690 U) in view of Ringler (US 1496491 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches an assembled sofa armrest structure, comprising a splicing body, wherein outside of the splicing body is sleeved with an armrest cover (Fig. 9 element 12), and top of the splicing body is provided with a cover (Fig. 3 element 4a); the splicing body comprises two side plates arranged longitudinally (Fig. 2 elements 1 and 2); the two side plates are arranged in parallel (Shown in Fig. 2), and the two side plates are connected by splicing pieces (Fig. 2 elements 6).
Chen fails to explicitly teach connecting strips are provided between the two side plates, and the connecting strips are located at the front end and the rear end of the side plates; the connecting strips are used to assist in fixing the two side plates so that the relative positions of the two side plates are fixed.
However, Ringler teaches connecting strips are provided between the two side plates, and the connecting strips are located at the front end and the rear end of the side plates; the connecting strips are used to assist in fixing the two side plates so that the relative positions of the two side plates are fixed (Fig. 2 strip elements 4 fixing two side panels).
Chen and Ringler are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of panel connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sofa armrest of Chen to have the connecting strips disclosed by Ringler. Doing so would allow the armrest width to be fixed once the desired width is achieved.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen and Ringler teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Chen further discloses the number of connecting strips located at the front/rear ends of the two side plates shall not be less than two (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen and Ringler teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Chen further discloses the inside of the armrest cover and the top of the cover are both provided with a flexible buffer layer (Fig. 3 element 4a).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 218164690 U) in view of Ringler (US 1496491 A) and further in view of Milakovich (US 3632150 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen and Ringler teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Chen and Ringler fail to explicitly teach the connecting strips are bandages, and the corresponding positions on the outside of the connecting strips and inside of the armrest cover are provided with matching Velcro straps.
However, Milakovich teaches the connecting strips are bandages, and the corresponding positions on the outside of the connecting strips and inside of the armrest cover are provided with matching Velcro straps (“FIG. 8 includes a removable panel 119 which has a peripheral "Velcro" strip 122 along the interior surface thereof which mates with an associated "Velcro" strip 120, the latter being on the main body of the upholstery cover” Col. 34-38).
Chen, Ringler and Milakovich are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of panel connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the armrest of Chen in view of Ringler to have the hook and loop cover connection as disclosed by Milakovich. Doing so would provide a secure connection between the armrest panels and the armrest cover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644