DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “The two” should be --the two-- for consistency;
Similarly for line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-9 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "both sides" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As seats have more than two sides, the reference to “both” is unclear.
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 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0290007) in view of Frankel et al. (US 2019/0104850).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Chen discloses a folding swing chair comprising:
a folding mechanism comprising:
two uprights (21);
two oblique support mechanisms, each comprising an oblique support rod (24), a bottom frame rod (242), a first connection piece (22) and a rear support foot (at 23); and
a linkage mechanism comprising two linkage rods (1) configured to be crossed and hinged to each other (as seen in e.g. Fig 1; [0009]);
wherein upper ends of the oblique rods and upper ends of the linkage rods are hinged to the respective connection pieces (Figs 1 and 3), lower ends of the linkage rods and first ends of the bottom rods are hinged to respective rear support feet (directly to 23, indirectly to rear base of 24), second ends of the bottom rods are hinged to oblique rods, and lower ends of the support rods are hinged to the linkage rods (Fig 1);
wherein the oblique rods and bottom rods form a triangular structure (Fig 1) while the upright rods are tilted toward the front of the chair body (Fig 4); and
the first connection pieces are slidably sleeved on the upright rods via combination through holes (Fig 2), the holes having two columnar holes with central axes intersecting (at eth very least, colinear, which intersect at all locations).
Chen discloses a seat cushion supported by the upright rods (Fig 4), but does not disclose the seat supported by support rods fitting into the upright rods.
Frankel teaches removable support rods (32) fitting into upright rods (31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Chen to use removable support rods as taught by Frankel for the predictable advantage of decreasing the size, particularly the length, of the chair when in the collapsed (stowed) state for storage, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Chen discloses the connection piece comprising an accommodation chamber (3), a control block (4), a spring ([0047]), and a lock pin (6), and the locking arrangement as depicted in Fig 2 and described in [0047] is generally identical to the arrangement depicted in applicant’s Fig 8.
Regarding claims 3 and 7:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 6 is relied upon.
Chen discloses suspension straps (9) connected to the sides of the seat cushion (Fig 4), and the upright rods connected to and held against the straps through second connection pieces (91; [0051]).
Regarding claims 4 and 8:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 7 is relied upon.
Chen discloses a third connection piece hingedly connecting the linkage rods and the upright rods (Figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 9:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 8 is relied upon.
Chen discloses the lower ends of the oblique rods hinged to foot pads (Figs 1 and 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that references do not disclose each of the oblique support mechanism including a single oblique support rod and a single bottom frame rod, Chen provides for an arrangement on each side having a single forward-facing oblique rod and frame rod. The mirrored arrangement on the rear would be considered two additional support mechanisms. The claim uses open language (“comprising”) and thus does not preclude the use of additional supports mechanisms.
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 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 Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights