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 § 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim discloses a “second trigger pedal” and a “second trigger mechanism” while never referencing a first trigger pedal/mechanism in the claim or the claims which claim 11 depends on. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will consider to limitations to read “a trigger pedal” and “a trigger mechanism”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng (CN 111265042 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Weng teaches a dual-axis adjustment device, comprising: a pivoting component (Fig. 3 element 110) configured to allow a top component of a furniture piece to rotate about a first axis with respect to a stand; and a lock component (Fig. 3 element 121) configured to allow the top component to slide relative to the stand along a second axis (BB’); wherein the pivoting component and the lock component are arranged along a common axis (AA’) (Fig. 3 axis connecting element 110 and 121), the first axis is a rotational axis, and wherein the common axis (AA’) is co-axial with the first axis and perpendicular to the second axis (BB’) (Fig. 3 axis between element 123 and 103).
Regarding Claim 2, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the pivoting component comprises a cylindrical mount, a gear lock, and a rotatable arm, the cylindrical mount shaped and dimensioned to receive the gear lock and the rotatable arm, and wherein the cylindrical mount and the gear lock comprises a first set of gear teeth and a second set of gear teeth respectively, the first set of gear teeth operatively engageable with the second set of gear teeth (“Ambulatory angle locking structure comprises a shell 102 outside of the leisure locking handle 110, located in the base is provided with multiple gear hole 111 of the lock gear teeth 112” Highlighted in attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the rotatable arm is arranged to support the top component of the furniture piece, the rotatable arm configured to engage with the gear lock, wherein in a locked position, the second set of gear teeth engages the first set of gear teeth and in an unlocked position, the second set of gear teeth disengages from the first set of gear teeth (“Ambulatory angle locking structure comprises a shell 102 outside of the leisure locking handle 110, located in the base is provided with multiple gear hole 111 of the lock gear teeth 112” Highlighted in attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses a first trigger mechanism (Fig. 3 trigger elements 121 to engage the gear lock) pivoted on the cylindrical mount, wherein the gear lock comprises a slot configured to function as a cam slot, and wherein the first trigger mechanism comprises a shaft configured to function as a cam follower to engage the slot of the gear lock in a manner such as to engage or disengage the second set of gear teeth from the first set of gear teeth (Fig. 4 elements 112 and 113).
Regarding Claim 6, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses a coil spring, the coil spring configured to provide a preloaded counter rotational motion of the rotatable arm with respect to the cylindrical mount when the gear lock is disengaged (Fig. 3 element 106).
Regarding Claim 7, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 4 and further discloses a first trigger pedal, the first trigger pedal comprising a handle and an engagement portion to engage the first trigger mechanism in a manner such as to rotate the first trigger mechanism (Fig. 3 pedal element adjacent element 110).
Regarding Claim 8, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the lock component comprises, a linkage arm (Fig. 3 element 121), a connector (Fig. 3 element 127) and a rod (Fig. 3 element 123), wherein the rod is pivotably connected to the connector, and wherein the linkage arm is configured to provide an upward force on the rod.
Regarding Claim 9, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses a mounting arm, wherein the mounting arm is arranged to support the top component of the furniture piece (Fig. 3 element 103).
Regarding Claim 11, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses a second trigger pedal, the second trigger pedal comprising a handle and an engagement portion to engage the second trigger mechanism in a manner such as to rotate the second trigger mechanism (Fig. 3 trigger elements 121 to engage the gear lock).
Regarding Claim 12, Weng teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11 and further discloses the second trigger pedal remains at a constant angle with respect to the top component when the top component is rotated about the first axis with respect to the stand (Fig. 3 trigger elements 121 to engage the gear lock).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng (CN 111265042 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Weng teaches a method of manufacturing a dual-axis adjustment device, the method comprising: a step of providing a pivoting component (Fig. 3 element 110) configured to allow a top component of a furniture piece to rotate about a first axis with respect to a stand; and a step of providing a lock component (Fig. 3 element 121) configured to allow the top component to slide relative to the stand along a second axis (BB’), wherein the pivoting component and the lock component are arranged along a common axis (AA’) (Fig. 3 axis connecting element 110 and 121), the first axis is a rotational axis, and wherein the common axis (AA’) is co-axial with the first axis and perpendicular to the second axis (BB’) (Fig. 3 axis between element 123 and 103).
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN 108402763 A) in view of Weng (CN 111265042 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Tian teaches a leg rest comprising a top component (Fig. 1 element 1) and a stand (Fig. 2 elements 2 and 3), the top component rotatably mounted to the stand about a first axis the leg rest comprises an adjustment device (Fig. 2 shows pivotability of top component).
Tian fails to explicitly teach the adjustment device comprises: a pivoting component configured to allow the top component to rotate about the first axis, and a lock component configured to allow the top component to slide relative to the stand along the second axis, wherein the pivoting component and the lock component are arranged along a common axis (AA’), the first axis is a rotational axis, and the common axis (AA’) is co-axial with the first axis and perpendicular to the second axis (BB’).
However, Weng teaches the adjustment device comprises: a pivoting component (Fig. 3 element 110) configured to allow the top component to rotate about the first axis, and a lock component (Fig. 3 element 121) configured to allow the top component to slide relative to the stand along the second axis, wherein the pivoting component and the lock component are arranged along a common axis (AA’) (Fig. 3 axis connecting element 110 and 121), the first axis is a rotational axis, and the common axis (AA’) is co-axial with the first axis and perpendicular to the second axis (BB’) (Fig. 3 axis between element 123 and 103).
Tian and Weng are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable furniture 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 foot rest of Tian to include the lock component as disclosed by Weng. Doing so would allow the horizontal adjustment of the leg rest structure.
Regarding Claim 14, Tian and Weng teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Tian further discloses the stand comprises a support (Fig. 2 element 2) and a base (Fig. 2 element 3), and wherein the top component is attachable to the support (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Tian and Weng teach the limitations set forth in Claim 14.
Weng further discloses an elongated housing to contain the pivoting component and the lock component therein, wherein the elongated housing has a longitudinal axis which is the common axis (AA’) (Shown in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 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
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