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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied bypresenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which heis presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to havefound the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examinerswork." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q.289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to notjust disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as notto "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden ValleyMicrowave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind.1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn YanBoats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. etaL, 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It isunreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialingthe accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission ofthe cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
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 1-9 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 phrase "high leg” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high leg” 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 claim 1 the phrases "one another” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what the "one another” refers to.
Re claims 2-9 the phrase "The seating unit" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the "The seating unit" is the same "The high leg seating unit" or different seating unit.
Reference of prior art
Lawson et al. (US 20120049606, ZERO-WALL CLEARANCE LINKAGE MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LAYOUT).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawson.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson discloses:
A high leg seating unit moveable between closed, extended and fully reclined positions (Figs. 1-3, item 10), the seating unit comprising; two sides spaced from one another (¶ 0031), each side having a lower edge and an upper edge spaced apart from the lower edge (Figs. 1-3, items 55, the lower edge opposite and 57); a seat extending between the two sides (¶ 0031, item 15); a plurality of extendable ottoman support brackets (Figs. 5-7, items 140, 170); a chair back extending upwardly from a rearward edge of the seat (items 25, 54); a pair of side plates, each side plate coupled to a corresponding one of the two sides (¶ 0031, item 55); a linkage mechanism supported between the side plates and coupling at least the seat (Figs. 1-7, item 100), the plurality of ottoman support brackets, and the chair back (¶ 0032), the linkage mechanism having a six-bar ottoman linkage operable to extend the plurality of ottoman support brackets from the closed position (¶ 0040-0043, item 110, 120, 130, 150, 370, 590), with the ottoman linkage disposed beneath the seat to the extended position (fig. 7 depicts the limitation), with the ottoman linkage extending and supporting the plurality of ottoman brackets in front of the seat (fig. 6 and ¶ 0020); wherein the linkage mechanism has a height in the closed position (Fig. 7, item 100 depicts a height); and a motor coupled to the linkage mechanism to move the seating unit between the closed, extended and fully reclined positions (¶ 0059, 0063, items 320, 340).
However Lawson discloses the claimed invention except for the height is below 200 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the height is below 200 millimeters to match the design choice of the seating unit and for added comfort for the occupant of the seating unit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses: The seating unit of claim 1, wherein the linkage mechanism further comprises a back bracket and a seat plate (Fig. 5, items 510. 400), the back bracket pivotally coupled to the seat plate, and a rear recline linkage (¶ 0049), wherein the rear recline linkage is located rearwardly of the pivot point of the back bracket and the seat plate (Fig. 5, depicts the limitation)
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses: The seating unit of claim 1, wherein the six-bar ottoman linkage comprises a front ottoman link (Fig. 5, item 130) pivotally coupled to the seat plate on a first end and a second end spaced from the first end (¶ 0042 and Fig. 5, items 120, 130 first end and a second end),
However Lawson, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for in the closed position, a line extending from the first end of the front ottoman link to the second end of the front ottoman link forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 50 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in the closed position, a line extending from the first end of the front ottoman link to the second end of the front ottoman link forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 50 degrees to match the design choice of the seating unit and for added comfort for the occupant of the seating unit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except the line extending from the first end of the front ottoman link to the second end of the front ottoman link, in the closed position, forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 40 degrees It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the line extending from the first end of the front ottoman link to the second end of the front ottoman link, in the closed position, forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 40 degrees to match the design choice of the seating unit and for added comfort for the occupant of the seating unit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses: The seating unit of claim 4, wherein the second end of the front ottoman link is pivotally coupled to an outside ottoman link of the six-bar linkage (¶ 0043 and Fig. 5, items 140, 150), and wherein the line extending from the point of pivotal connection between the first end of the front ottoman link and the seat rail to the point of pivotal connection between the second end of the front ottoman link and the outside ottoman link forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 50 degrees (fig. 7, depicts the limitation).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses: The seating unit of claim 1, wherein the six-bar ottoman linkage comprises a rear ottoman link pivotally coupled to the seat plate on a first end and a second end spaced from the first end (Fig. 5, items 110 via 115 and ¶ 0040, 0042), and wherein, in the closed position, a line extending from the first end of the rear ottoman link to the second end of the rear ottoman link forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 45 degrees (fig. 7, depicts the limitation).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses: The seating unit of claim 6, wherein the line extending from the first end of the rear ottoman link to the second end of the rear ottoman link, in the closed position, forms an angle relative to horizontal of less than 35 degrees (fig. 7, depicts the limitation)
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except the length of the front ottoman link from the first end to the second end is less than 7.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the length of the front ottoman link from the first end to the second end is less than 7.5 inches to match the design choice of the seating unit and for added comfort for the occupant of the seating unit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lawson, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except the length of the rear ottoman link from the first end to the second end is less than 6 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the length of the rear ottoman link from the first end to the second end is less than 6 inches to match the design choice of the seating unit and for added comfort for the occupant of the seating unit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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