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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 15 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
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, the furniture composition of a chair and table, as well as the various features thereof (e.g. transmitting unit), 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites a furniture composition comprising the chair of claim 1 and a table, with communication between the two in order to adjust the table height according to the chair height. However, aside from the claim language (repeated in [0038]), the disclosure is silent as to the arrangement and operation of this system. For example, there is no description of the table to provide for adjustability or control of the table. The disclosure only provides a bare recitation of an intended system and operation. Accordingly, the disclosure does not adequately provide for this system in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without mechanisms for control and adjustability of the table, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The claim and disclosure provide for sending a signal to the table, however indicates no means for processing the signal and adjusting the table based thereon. One of ordinary skill would not be able to adjust the table based solely on a sent signal without undue experimentation.
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 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brodmerkel (DE 43 03 021).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Brodmerkel discloses a chair comprising:
a seat comprising a seat carrier (6) having rear (6.2) and front (6.1) sections;
a height adjustment device (4.1) coupled to the seat for changing a distance between the seat and a foot part (2), the front and rear sections having adjustable heights relative to each other (e.g. as seen in Figs 2 and 3); and
a blocking structure (outer tube of 4) configured to block the height adjustment device when the heights of the rear and front sections are in a target position (Fig 2, the device 4.1 stops moving in the outer tube of 4 due to lack of further space to move).
Regarding claims 2-4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Brodmerkel discloses the seat configured to tilt about a tilting axis (as seen in e.g. Figs 2 and 3, the seat tilts, rendering a tilting axis), the tilting axis extending substantially at a right angle to the seat direction (since the seat tilts forward/back), wherein the blocking structure is configured to block the height adjustment device when the seat carrier is tilted to a predetermined target inclination (e.g. Fig 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Brodmerkel discloses the height adjustment device having a height pressure element in the form of a gas spring (“This second height lift can also be equipped with a gas pressure spring”).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 8 is relied upon.
Brodmerkel discloses release and locking mechanism (“To reduce the angle of inclination of the seat plate on the other hand, the chair is loaded by the user take place, the known control lever mechanisms Lock is released until the desired angle of inclination the seat plate is reached”).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodmerkel (‘021) in view of Lenz (US 2018/0020831).
Brodmerkel discloses an adjustable chair, but does not disclose sending a signal to adjust table accordingly.
Lenz teaches a chair-table system which adjusts the components in a synchronized manner ([0031]) in order to automatically adjust the table for a seated user ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Brodmerkel to adjust a table accordingly as taught by Lenz for the predictable advantage of automatically adjusting the workstation for use/non-use as the user stands or sits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 10-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does render obvious the seat comprising a seat carrier pressure element to return the seat to a home position or the seat actuating the locking or release mechanisms, in combination with the other limitations of the claim(s). Although these features are generally common in the art, Brodmerkel teaches away from these arrangements, as the gas spring arrangement of the height adjustment device returns the seat to the “home” position, and the locking is actuated via a clamping arrangement to lock in “any position”, with release in a like manner.
Conclusion
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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