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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himolla (DE 20116145 U1).
Regarding Claim 1, Himolla teaches a footrest assembly for attachment to a chair (Shown in Fig. 8), the footrest assembly comprising a mounting frame (Fig. 8 connecting structure underneath chair shown in Fig. 8) configured to be attached to a seat portion of the chair, the mounting frame comprising a pair of brackets (Fig. 8 elements 27) ; a recliner frame comprising a first portion (Fig. 8 elements 31) configured to be slidably received by the pair of brackets (Transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows the first portion being slidably received by elements 27) the first portion comprising a frame configured to interface with the pair of brackets to attach the recliner frame in position with the seat portion of the chair (Fig. 8 elements 31 has frame member interfacing with elements 27 via element 29), and a second portion configured to support a footrest (Fig. 8 element 15), the first portion pivotably connected to the second portion to define a recliner angle therebetween (Shown in Fig. 8); and an actuator assembly configured to allow adjustment of the recliner angle between the first portion and the second portion, the actuator assembly comprises a gas spring (Element 45 best shown in Fig. 4) configured to urge the second portion to an extended position while the first portion comprising the frame is held in position by the pair of brackets (Gas spring capable of urging the second portion to extend while the frame is held in position by the bracket), the extended position corresponding to a maximum allowable recliner angle (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the pair of brackets, the first portion and the second portion form a six-bar mechanical linkage, the six-bar mechanical linkage arranged to move from a retracted position to the extended position upon actuation of the gas spring (Shown in transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the second portion comprises means for attaching the footrest directly or indirectly to a main linkage of a linkage system of the second portion when the six-bar mechanical linkage is in the retracted position (Connection shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the second portion comprises a support plate shaped and dimensioned to receive the footrest (Fig. 8 shows plate structures coupled to element 15 supporting the footrest).
Regarding Claim 6, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the second portion comprises an end portion shaped and dimensioned to receive the footrest (Fig. 8 shows plate structures coupled to element 15 supporting the footrest).
Regarding Claim 10, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses each of the pair of brackets comprises a base portion and a pair of ribs extending from longitudinal opposing sides of the base portion, wherein the free end of at least one of the pair of ribs is inclined towards the free end of the other rib (Fig. 8 elements 27).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himolla (DE 20116145 U1).
Regarding Claim 13, Himolla teaches a chair comprising a seat portion and a footrest assembly installed to the seat portion, the footrest assembly comprising a mounting frame configured to be attached to the seat portion of the chair (Shown in Fig. 8), the mounting frame comprising a pair of brackets (Fig. 8 elements 27); a recliner frame comprising a first portion (Fig. 8 elements 31) configured to be slidably received by the pair of brackets (Transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows the first portion being slidably received by elements 27) the first portion comprising a frame configured to interface with the pair of brackets to attach the recliner frame in position with the seat portion of the chair (Fig. 8 elements 31 has frame member interfacing with elements 27 via element 29), and a second portion configured to support a footrest (Fig. 8 element 15), the first portion pivotably connected to the second portion to define a recliner angle (Shown in Fig. 8); and an actuator assembly configured to allow adjustment of the recliner angle between the first portion and the second portion (Shown in the transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), the actuator assembly comprises a gas spring (Element 45 best shown in Fig. 4) configured to urge the second portion to an extended position while the first portion comprising the frame is held in position by the pair of brackets (Gas spring capable of urging the second portion to extend while the frame is held in position by the bracket), the extended position corresponding to a maximum allowable recliner angle (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses the pair of brackets, the first portion and the second portion form a six-bar mechanical linkage, the six-bar mechanical linkage arranged to move from a retracted position to the extended position upon actuation of the gas spring (Shown in transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), and wherein the second portion comprises means for attaching the footrest directly or indirectly to a main linkage of a linkage system of the second portion when the six-bar mechanical linkage is in the retracted position (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses the second portion comprises an end portion shaped and dimensioned to receive the footrest (Fig. 8 shows plate structures coupled to element 15 supporting the footrest).
Regarding Claim 17, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses each of the pair of brackets comprises a base portion and a pair of ribs extending from longitudinal opposing sides of the base portion, wherein the free end of at least one of the pair of ribs is inclined towards the free end of the other rib (Fig. 8 elements 27).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Himolla (DE 20116145 U1).
Regarding Claim 20, Himolla teaches a method of manufacturing a footrest assembly for attachment to a chair, the method comprising a step of providing a mounting frame, the mounting frame configured to be attached to a seat portion of the chair (Shown in Fig. 8), the mounting frame comprising a pair of brackets (Fig. 8 elements 27); a step of providing a recliner frame, the recliner frame comprising a first portion (Fig. 8 elements 31) configured to be slidably received by the pair of brackets (Transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows the first portion being slidably received by elements 27) the first portion comprising a frame configured to interface with the pair of brackets to attach the recliner frame in position with the seat portion of the chair (Fig. 8 elements 31 has frame member interfacing with elements 27 via element 29), and a second portion configured to support a footrest (Fig. 8 element 15), the first portion pivotably connected to the second portion to define a recliner angle therebetween (Shown in Fig. 8); and a step of providing an actuator assembly, the actuator assembly configured to allow adjustment of the recliner angle between the first portion and the second portion (Shown in the transition between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), the actuator assembly comprises a gas spring (Element 45 best shown in Fig. 4) configured to urge the second portion to an extended position while the first portion comprising the frame is held in position by the pair of brackets (Gas spring capable of urging the second portion to extend while the frame is held in position by the bracket), the extended position corresponding to a maximum allowable recliner angle (Shown in Fig. 8).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himolla (DE 20116145 U1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20150359343 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Himolla teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3.
Himolla fails to explicitly teach the means for attaching comprises at least one magnet.
However, Wang teaches the means for attaching comprises at least one magnet (Fig. 4 element 71).
Himolla and Wang are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of chair footrest 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 footrest of Himolla to have the magnetic connection as disclosed by Wang. Doing so would provide a connection between the footrest and the second portion when in the retracted position, while allowing for an easy disconnect when transitioning to the extended position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the first portion of Himolla does not comprise a frame configured to interface with the brackets. The examiner respectfully disagrees as elements 31 of Himolla interface with elements 27 via element 29. Applicant states that the gas spring of Himolla is not configured to urge the second portion to an extended position while the first position is held in position. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the gas spring of Himolla is capable of urging the second portion to extend when in retracted position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-19 are 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights