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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom fails to teach the claimed invention (Remarks p. 8). Specifically, Applicant argues that the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom fails to teach “a base bracket coupled to the base, the base bracket having a seat pitch pivot point; a seat plate pivotally coupled to the base bracket at the seat pitch pivot point; an ottoman motor pivotally coupled to the base at an ottoman motor pivot point, the ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant argues that Donovan’s seat plate is not pivotally coupled to anything that could be considered the recited base bracket. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the 1/22/26 Office Action, the seat plate 28 is connected to the bracket through the motor 62. Applicant has not specified a direct connection. This is consistent with the “broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach” (MPEP 2111). Second, Applicant claims that Donovan does not teach the claimed ottoman motor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the 1/22/26 Office Action, the motor 14 drives a linkage that ultimately results in pivoting. Third, Applicant argues that Donovan does not have separate motors. As detailed in the 1/22/26 Office Action, the motor 14 acts as the claimed motors, because the claim languages uses “comprising,” and “The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended” (MPEP 2111.03.I). Thus, it falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation for the same motor to act as the aforementioned motors.
Applicant can overcome the above by amending the claim to clarify that the claimed structures are separate and distinct from one another.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150054316 A1 to Donovan in view of US 4386803 to Gilderbloom.
Re Claim 1, Donovan teaches:
A recliner mechanism for a seating unit, comprising: a base (rails 16 and 18 and plates 20 and 22, Fig. 4, (0023]); a base bracket coupled to the base (bracket 63, Fig. 4, (0028]), the base bracket having a seat pitch pivot point (drive unit 62 is pivotally mounted to bracket 62, and thus acts as a pivot point, [0028]);
a seat plate pivotally coupled to the base bracket at the seat pitch pivot point (seat plate 28 is pivotally connected lo bracket 63 through motor 62, Fig. 6, (0024]); a seat pitch motor operably coupled between the base and the seat plate, the seal pitch motor operable to rotate the seat plate with respect to the base bracket about the seat pitch pivot point (motor 62rotates seat plate 28, Fig. 6, (0028]);
an ottoman linkage coupled to the seat plate (linkage 34 connects to seat plate 28, Fig. 6, (0033]); an ottoman motor pivotally coupled to the base at an ottoman motor pivot point (motor 14 operates the ottoman, Fig. 6, [00391), the ottoman motor operably coupled to the ottoman linkage ([0039]); wherein the seat pitch pivot point is in close proximity to the ottoman motor pivot point, allowing independent operation of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor (motor 14 and drive unit 70 are pivotally mounted, Fig. 6, (0039]).
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
the ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
an ottoman motor operably coupled between a base and the ottoman linkage (motor 94 controls ottoman 18 and is mounted to a base of the chair by mounts 52, col. 7, II. 35-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage as disclosed by Gilderbloom with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it will make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 2, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 1.
Donovan fails to teach:
a back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
a back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled
to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket (back brace 58 attaches to the chair back and is driven by motor 50 independent of the ottoman, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention lo modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using a back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket as taught by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 3, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 1.
Donovan further teaches:
a pivot bracket fixedly coupled to the seat plate, the seat plate pivotally coupled to the base bracket at the pivot bracket (seat plate 28 is pivotally connected to base 20 via bracket 24, Fig. 3, [0023]).
Re Claim 4, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 1.
Donovan further teaches:
the ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to a back bracket than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor 70 pivots at its connected to bar 66 which is further back than bracket 63 which seat motor 62 pivots about, Fig. 4, [0028]).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 4.
Donovan fails to explicitly teach:
A drive control bracket is fixedly coupled to the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor Is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
a drive control bracket is fixedly coupled to the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket (bracket 62 connects motor 50 to the back of the chair, Fig. 2, col. 6; II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using a drive control bracket is fixedly coupled to the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket as taught by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the chair back independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 6, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 4.
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
A drive control bracket is integrally formed with the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
a drive control bracket is integrally formed with the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket (bracket 62 forms an integral assembly with and connects motor 50 to the back of the chair, Fig. 2, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in-the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using a drive control bracket is integrally formed with the back bracket, and wherein the recline motor is pivotally coupled to the back bracket via the drive control bracket as disclosed by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the chair back independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 1.
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point. However, Gilderbloom teaches:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor and its connection to the base are lower and therefore closer to the base than motor 50, Fig. 6, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point. Gilderbloom teaches the ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point as disclosed by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman Independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 8, Donovan teaches:
A recliner mechanism for a seating unit, comprising: a base (rails 16 and 18 and plates 20 and 22, Fig. 4, [0023]); a base bracket coupled to the base (bracket 63, Fig. 4, [0028]), the base bracket having a seat pitch motor pivot point (drive unit 62 is pivotally mounted to bracket 62, [0028]); a seat plate pivotally coupled to the base bracket at the seat pitch pivot point (seat plate 28 is pivotally connected to bracket 63 through motor 62, Fig. 6, [0024]); a seat pitch motor operably coupled between the base and the seat plate, the seat pitch motor operable to rotate the seat plate with respect to the base bracket about the seat pitch pivot point (motor 62 rotates seat plate 28, Fig. 6, [0028]);
an ottoman linkage coupled to the seat plate (linkage 34 connects to seat plate 28, Fig. 6, [0033]); an ottoman motor pivotally coupled to the seat plate at an ottoman motor pivot point; (motor 70 connects to seat plate 28 through pivoting connection at bar 66, Fig. 6, [0033]), the ottoman motor operably coupled to the ottoman linkage ([0039]); wherein the seat pitch pivot point is in close proximity to the ottoman motor pivot point, allowing independent operation of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor (motor 14 and drive unit 70 are pivotally mounted, Fig. 6, [0039]).
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
A back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
A back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket (back brace 58 attaches to the chair back and is driven by motor 50 independent of the ottoman, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage as disclosed by Gilderbloom with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it will make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 9, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 8.
Donovan further teaches:
A seat pitch motor operably coupled between the base and the seat plate, the seat pitch motor operable to rotate the seat plate with respect to the base bracket about the seat pitch pivot point (motor 62 rotates seat plate 28, Fig. 6, [0028]).
Re Claim 10, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 8.
Donovan further teaches:
The ottoman motor is operably coupled between the seat plate and the ottoman linkage (motor 14 is connected between the seat plate and a linkage, Fig. 6, [0039]).
Re Claim 11, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 8.
Donovan further teaches:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to a back bracket than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor 70 pivots at 'its connected to bar 66 wh'1ch '1s further back than bracket 63 which seat motor 62 pivots about, Fig. 4, [0028]).
Re Claim 12, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 8.
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor and its connection to the base are lower and therefore closer, to the base than motor 50, Fig. 6, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seal pitch pivot point. Gilderbloom discloses the ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point as disclosed by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, 11. 7-12).
Re Claim 13, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 8.
Donovan further teaches:
The base bracket further comprises a stop bracket having an upper end and a lower end, and wherein the upper end of the stop bracket supports a pitch tube, restricting movement of the seat plate (tube 66 is located at the top of bracket 69 to control, i.e. limit, the movement of the seat plate, [0028]).
Re Claim 14, Donovan teaches:
A recliner mechanism for a seating unit, comprising: a base having a pair of spaced apart base rails and a pair of cross tubes (rails 16 and 18 and tubes 20 and 22, Fig, 4, [0023]); a base bracket coupled to the base (bracket 63, Fig. 4, [0028]); a seat plate pivotally coupled to the base bracket at the seat pitch pivot point (seat plate 28 is pivotally connected to bracket 63 through motor 62, Fig. 6, [0024]); a seat pitch motor operably coupled between the base and the seat plate, the seat pitch motor operable to rotate the seat plate with respect to the base bracket about the seat pitch pivot point (motor 62 ro(ates seat plate 28, Fig, 6, [0028]);
an ottoman linkage coupled to the seat plate (linkage 34 connects to seat plate 28, Fig. 6, [0033]); an ottoman motor pivotally coupled to the base at an ottoman motor pivot point (motor 14 operates the ottoman, Fig. 6, [0039]), the ottoman motor operably coupled to the ottoman linkage ([0039]); wherein the seat pitch pivot point is in close proximity to the ottoman motor pivot point, allowing independent operation of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor (motor 14 and drive unit 70 are pivotally mounted, Fig. 6, [0039]).
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
The ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
The ottoman motor operably coupled between a base and the ottoman linkage (motor 94 controls ottoman 18 and is mounted to a base of the chair by mounts 52, col. 7, II. 35-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor operably coupled between the base and the ottoman linkage as disclosed by Gilderbloom with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it will make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 15, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 14.
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
A back bracket having a drive control bracket fixedly coupled thereto pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
A back bracket having a drive control bracket fixedly coupled thereto (62, Fig. 2) pivotally coupled to the seat plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing Independent recline of the back bracket (back brace 58 attaches to the chair back and is driven by motor 50 independent of the ottoman, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using a back bracket pivotally coupled to the seal plate; and a recline motor pivotally coupled to the base on one end and to the back bracket on the other end; the recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor, allowing independent recline of the back bracket as taught by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 16, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 15.
Donovan further teaches:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to a back bracket than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor 70 pivots at its connected to bar 66 which is further back than bracket 63 which seat motor 62 pivots about, Fig. 4, [0028]).
Re Claim 17, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 14.
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point. However, Gilderbloom teaches:
The ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point (ottoman motor and Its connection to the base are lower and therefore closer to the base than motor 50, Fig. 6, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the lime of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point. Gilderbloom teaches the ottoman motor pivot point is positioned closer to the base than the seat pitch pivot point as taught by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
Re Claim 18, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 14.
Donovan further teaches:
The base bracket is formed in a shape of a parallelogram (Fig. 6).
Re Claim 19, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 14.
Donovan further teaches:
A brace affixed between the base rail and an upper end of the base bracket (rails 16 Includes a vertically extending portion that is affixed to bracket 63, Fig. 6).
Re Claim 20, the combination of Donovan and Gilderbloom teaches:
The recliner of claim 14.
Donovan further teaches:
Each of the seat pitch motor, the ottoman motor, and the recline motor are Independently operable, such the ottoman linkage, the back recline and the seat pitch are each adjustable independently from each other (seat pitch and ottoman control are independent of each other, [0044]).
Donovan does not explicitly teach:
An independent recline motor.
However, Gilderbloom teaches:
A recline motor operable to recline the back bracket independently of the ottoman motor and the seat pitch motor (back brace 58 attaches to the chair back and is driven by motor 50 independent of the ottoman, col. 6, II. 39-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recliner mechanism of Donovan by using an independent recline motor as taught by Gilderbloom in order to make operation of the ottoman independent of the other chair components (Gilderbloom col. 8, II. 7-12).
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 GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights