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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Reference of prior art
Meier et al. (US 20230191956 , SEAT ARRANGEMENT FOR A MEANS OF TRANSPORT).
Sirjoo. (US 20050023875, Portable Folding Chair).
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 (is/are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Meier.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Meier discloses:
A seat comprising:
a seat rest (¶ 0049, items 4, 4a and 4b);
a backrest coupled to and rotatable with respect to the seat rest (¶ 0049, items 2, 2a and 2b); and
a rotation mechanism coupled to the backrest and the seat rest such that the rotation mechanism can rotate the backrest with respect to the seat rest (¶ 0052, 0056, item 22), wherein, by the rotation mechanism, the backrest is configured to be rotatable in a first direction within a preset angle range, and wherein, by the rotation mechanism, the backrest is configured to be rotatable in a second direction within the angle range, wherein the first direction is opposite the second direction (fig. 3, items 12a and 12b).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Meier discloses:
A vehicle comprising the seat of claim 1 (¶ 0027).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Meier discloses:
A seat comprising: a seat rest; a backrest; and a rotation mechanism couples the backrest to the seat rest in a configuration for providing selectable seat positions including a forward-facing upright position, a rear-facing upright position, and a full-bed position, wherein the rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the backrest about a horizontal-lateral axis in an angle range relative to the seat rest.
(Claim 17 above is similar in scope to Claim 1 and ¶ 0069 and the figs depicting the limitations; therefore, Claim 13 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 and ¶ 0069 and the figs depicting the limitations).
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 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier and further in view of Sirjoo.
Re claims 2 and 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Meier fails to teach as disclosed by Sirjoo: The seat, wherein the preset angle/angle range is 0 to 180 degrees (¶ 0032, … the backrest 2 may rotate in an angle range of approximately 0° to 180° in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Sirjoo teachings of the angle range is 0 to 180 degrees into the Meier, as modified above, to convert the seat into bed mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are allowed.
Claims 3-9, 19 and 20 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, and overcome all the rejections above.
The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP ~ 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed “A rotation mechanism comprising: a leg bracket; a seat frame spaced apart from the leg bracket; a front link configured to connect the leg bracket to the seat frame at a first location and configured to be rotatable with respect to the leg bracket and to the seat frame, respectively; a rear link configured to connect the leg bracket to the seat frame at a second location and configured to be rotatable with respect to the leg bracket and to the seat frame, respectively; a rotation link rotatably coupled to the seat frame at a third location of the seat frame; and a connection link, wherein a first side of the connection link is coupled to the seat frame, and a second side of the connection link is coupled to the rotation link”, the previous cited limitations of claim 1 in conjunction with all other limitations of the dependent and independent claims are not taught nor suggested by the prior art of record (PTO-892 and 1449). Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
Examiner respectfully disagrees; Meier discloses “at least one frame element 2, 2a, 2b comprises an upper region 3 for supporting the back and at least one seat region 4, 4a, 4b” (¶ 0049), “the at least one frame element 2, 2a, 2b is pivotable into at least two pivoting positions 12a, 12b, 12c” (¶ 0052), the integrated seat region 4, 4a, 4b does not preclude the rotation of the backrest “In contrast, only the backrest can be pivoted about a pivot axis in conventional seat arrangements, the at least one frame element 2, 2a, 2b is pivotable into three pivoting positions 12a, 12b, 12c” (¶ 0052).
All the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIEN DINH can be reached on 571-272-6899. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights