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.
Drawings Objections
MATERIAL NOT SHOWN
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, axis of rotation, a series connection using three side base frames for at least two reclining mechanism assemblies, wherein one of the side base frames is used as a central base to join both assemblies, the first part, the second part, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire drawings and correct all such informalities.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 5, 9, 10, 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, 5, 9, 10, 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation tilting means and pivoting means, anchoring elements has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language tilting means and pivoting means, anchoring elements without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: tilting means and pivoting means, anchoring elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the claim recites "may be" is indirect, suggests optionally, and passive which renders any recitation claimed after not being patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required. Claims should be amended to recite "is" or "will be".
Re claim 1 the term “it” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination.
Re claims 1, 5, 10 and 13 the phrase "the rear end of the seat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 1 the term “fixed amnner” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination.
Re claims 5 and 10 the phrase "the same structural characteristics”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also it is unclear which drone the “the same structural characteristics” refers to.
Re claim 6 the phrase "a maximum reclining position” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "a maximum reclining position” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re claims 6, 8 and 10 the term “the bases” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the bases is the same "the L-shaped side bases” recited in claims 5, 10 or additional/different.
Re claim 13 the term “side base frame” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether side base frame is the same "the L-shaped side base frame” recited in claim 13 or additional/different.
Re claim 10 the phrase "the hinged movement of the backrest”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claims 11 and 17 the term “it, its” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination.
Re claim 12 the phrase "the first actuator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 15 the phrase "the first part, the second part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Reference of prior art
McLennan. (US 10888162, Theater Recliner Assembly And Method For Mounting Recliners To Existing Theater Risers).
Conner et al. (US 20250134256, RECLINING THEATER SEAT ON RISER STRUCTURE WITH INTEGRATED RECLINING SEAT MECHANISM).
Jacobs et al. (US 20170105540, Powered Chairs For Public Venues, Assemblies For Use In Powered Chairs, And Components For Use In Assemblies For Use In Powered Chairs).
Zhang. (US 20230346124, Recliner Chair For Cinema).
Rivera. (US 20160206098, ADJUSTABLE SEATING AND FURNITURE).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by McLennan.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan discloses:
A recliner chair to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher (items 100, 200), the recliner chair comprising:
a first side base and a second side base, both L-shaped, with each L-shaped base attaching to the surface of the tread and extending along the surface of the riser towards a lower surface or tread, wherein the second side base may be located on the right and the first side base on the left (items 102a, 102b, 200), or vice versa;
a seat comprising tilting means that attach to the L-shaped side bases, establishing an axis of rotation (item 116);
a backrest that attaches in a fixed manner to the rear end of the seat (item 110); and
a footrest that attaches under the seat (item 114); wherein the seat, backrest, and footrest form a tilting unit that pivots with respect to the L-shaped side bases via the axis of rotation (claim 1 and fig. 6).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan discloses:
The recliner chair, in accordance with claim 1, further comprising an actuating device located behind the footrest (item 116), wherein the actuating device pivotally connects to the seat to move the tilting unit, with respect to the L-shaped side bases, from an initial position to a maximum reclining position (items 102a, 102b, 116 and fig. 6); wherein the footrest extends/retracts as a result of the pivoting movement of the tilting unit (col. 2, l 27-48 and 114).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan discloses:
The recliner chair, in accordance with claim 1, wherein each L-shaped side base mounts with anchoring elements to the surface of the tread (col. 2, l 59-64), wherein each L-shaped side base comprises leveling elements that are supported on the surface of the riser to level its mounting (L-shaped vertical side that is abutting item 202a is considered leveling elements).
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) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLennan and further in view of Conner.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan fails to teach as disclosed by Conner: The recliner chair, in accordance with claim 1, wherein the tilting means of the seat comprises a pair of rotating elements located on each side of the seat, which attach to the L-shaped side bases (¶ 0038, … rotatable shaft 28 is rotatably mounted at the frame 26 at a forward portion of the frame 26 and extends across the forward portion of the frame).
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 Conner teachings of the tilting means of the seat comprises a pair of rotating elements located on each side of the seat, which attach to the L-shaped side bases into the McLennan, as modified above, to facilitate tilting of the seat during reclining.
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: A reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair to be mounted on a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher, the assembly comprising: a first side base frame and a second side base frame, both L-shaped, where each L-shaped side base frame attaches to the surface of a tread and extends along the surface of a riser towards a lower surface or tread, wherein the second side base comprises the same structural characteristics of the first side base, or vice versa; a seat frame that comprises tilting means, which attach to the L-shaped side bases, establishing a rotating axis; a backrest frame that attaches to the rear end of the seat frame; and a hinged footrest assembly that attaches underneath the seat frame; wherein the seat frame, the backrest frame, and the footrest assembly form a tilting unit that pivots, with respect to the L-shaped side bases, on the axis of rotation.
(Claim 5 above is similar in scope to Claims 1 and 4; therefore, Claim 5 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1 and 4).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claims 5, further comprising an actuating device located behind the footrest assembly (McLennan item 116), wherein the actuating device mechanically attaches to the seat frame to provoke the movement of the tilting unit, with respect to the bases, from an initial position to a maximum reclining position (McLennan items 102a, 102b, 116 and fig. 6); wherein the hinged footrest assembly extends/retracts as a result of the pivoting movement of the tilting unit (McLennan col. 2, l 27-48 and 114).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claim 5, wherein each L-shaped side base frame is mounted with anchoring elements to the surface of the tread (McLennan col. 2, l 59-64), wherein each L-shaped side base frame comprises leveling elements that project along and are supported by the surface of the riser to level the assembly (McLennan L-shaped vertical side that is abutting item 202a is considered leveling elements).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claim 5, wherein the tilting means of the seat frame comprises a pair of rotating elements located at each side of the seat frame and attach to the side bases ( Conner ¶ 0038, … rotatable shaft 28 is rotatably mounted at the frame 26 at a forward portion of the frame 26 and extends across the forward portion of the frame).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLennan and further in view of Conner and further in view of Jacobs.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Jacobs: An assembly system of at least two reclining chair mechanisms to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher; the assembly system comprises: a series connection using three side base frames for at least two reclining mechanism assemblies, as in claim 2, wherein one of the side base frames is used as a central base to join both assemblies (fig. 4, item 400).
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 Jacobs teachings of An assembly system of at least two reclining chair mechanisms to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher; the assembly system comprises: a series connection using three side base frames for at least two reclining mechanism assemblies, as in claim 2, wherein one of the side base frames is used as a central base to join both assemblies into the McLennan, as modified above, to save on the material used in constructing the seats and save money and save for more seats in the same space.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLennan and further in view of Zhang .
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: A recliner chair to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher, the recliner chair comprising: a seat base that attaches to the surface of the tread, a first L-shaped side base and a second L-shaped side base, with each side base attaching to each side of the seat base, which projects along the surface of the riser towards a lower surface or tread, wherein the second and first side bases comprise the same structural characteristics; a backrest that attaches via pivoting elements at the rear end of the seat base, establishing a first axis of rotation;
(Claim 10 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 10 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
However McLennan fails to teach as disclosed by Zhang: a first actuating device secured inside the backrest, wherein the first actuating device attaches to the seat base to provoke the hinged movement of the backrest at the first axis of rotation, with respect to the seat base, from an initial position to the backrest´s reclined position (see fig. below).
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 Zhang teachings of a first actuating device secured inside the backrest, wherein the first actuating device attaches to the seat base to provoke the hinged movement of the backrest at the first axis of rotation, with respect to the seat base, from an initial position to the backrest´s reclined position into the McLennan, to securely rotate the back of the seat.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The recliner chair, in accordance with claim 10, further comprising a footrest that attaches via pivoting means to the front end of the seat base, establishing a second axis of rotation (see fig. above); wherein the footrest projects along the surface of the riser without entirely covering it; and a second actuating device that attaches to the seat base, wherein the second actuating device pivotally attaches to the footrest to provoke the folding/unfolding movement of the footrest, from a retracted position to a fully expanded position (Zhang item 4).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The recliner chair, in accordance with claim 10, wherein the first actuator is located inside the backrest, and wherein the second actuating device is located behind the footrest (see fig. above).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: A reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher, the assembly comprising: a seat base frame that attaches to surface of the tread, a first L-shaped side base frame and a second L-shaped side base frame; where each side base frame attaches to the sides of the seat base frame, and projects along the surface of the riser towards the lower surface or tread, wherein the second side base frame mirrors the structure of the first side base frame, or vice versa; a backrest frame, wherein the backrest frame attaches to the rear end of the seat base frame via pivoting means, establishing a first axis of rotation; and a first actuating device secured inside the backrest frame, wherein the first actuating device attaches to the seat base frame to provoke the movement of the backrest frame at the first axis of rotation, with respect to the seat base frame, from an initial position to a reclined position.
(Claim 13 above is similar in scope to Claim 10; therefore, Claim 13 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 10)
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claim 13, further comprising a hinged footrest assembly that attaches beneath the front end of the seat base frame and projects along a portion of the riser; and a second actuator that is located behind the hinged footrest assembly and mechanically attaches via pivoting elements for the deployment/retraction of the hinged footrest assembly, independent of the reclining movement of the backrest frame of the assembly (see fig. above).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance 30b30b
with claim 13, wherein the seat base frame comprises a structure including a horizontal frame for the first part, and a vertical frame for the second part, which projects below the horizontal frame of the first part, and wherein the horizontal frame of the first part attaches onto a portion of the tread; and wherein the vertical frame of the second part projects along a portion of the riser; and wherein the horizontal frame of the first part and the vertical frame of the second part are defined by the shape of part of the bleacher on which the seat base frame mounts (see fig. above).
However McLennan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a metal structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a metal structure to withstand the heavy weight for longer durability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claim 14, wherein the seat base frame comprises upper mounting elements for the side base, which protrude from the sides of the horizontal frame of the first part; and lower mounting elements for the side base, which protrude from the sides of the vertical frame of the second part; wherein the first L-shaped side base and the second L-shaped side base attach to the sides of the seat base frame, coupling with the upper mounting elements for the side base and the lower mounting elements for the side base (Zhang ¶ 00013, items 1121 and 121).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLennan and further in view of Zhang and further in view of Rivera.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: The reclining mechanism assembly for a recliner chair, in accordance with claim 13, wherein the backrest frame comprises a metal structure formed by a backrest part and an angled headboard part, achieving an ergonomic shape for a user's back and head; wherein a pair of female-coupling elements are located at the sides of the lower end of the backrest; and wherein each female-coupling element receives one of the male-coupling elements in its interior, which pivotally attaches to the seat base frame, forming the first axis of rotation (¶ 0121, … using male and female mating parts).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLennan and further in view of Zhang and further in view of Jacobs.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McLennan, as modified above, discloses: An assembly system of at least two recliner chair mechanisms to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher; the assembly system comprising: a series connection using three side base frames for at least two reclining mechanism assemblies, as in claim 13, wherein one of the side base frames is used as a central base to join both assemblies (fig. 4, item 400).
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 Jacobs teachings of An assembly system of at least two reclining chair mechanisms to be mounted at the intersection between a portion of a tread and a portion of a riser of a bleacher; the assembly system comprises: a series connection using three side base frames for at least two reclining mechanism assemblies, as in claim 13, wherein one of the side base frames is used as a central base to join both assemblies into the McLennan, as modified above, to save on the material used in constructing the seats and save money and save for more seats in the same space.
Conclusion
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 during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 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