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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kennedy et al.
Regarding claim 17, Kennedy et al. disclose a child chair comprising: a seat body 61; a first leg 21, coupled to the seat body, defining a first slot 28; a second leg 21, coupled to the seat body, defining a second slot 28; and a footrest 21 configured to be removably coupled to the first and second legs, the footrest comprising: a first stadium projection 29 configured to removably mate with the slot of the first leg; and a second stadium projection 29 configured to removably mate with the slot of the second leg, wherein each of the first and second stadium projections is configured to be received in a respective one of the first and second slots in a first orientation and in a second orientation, the footrest being flipped in the second orientation relative to the first orientation (the footrest can be flipped upside down and the projection will still fit the slot).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilger et al. (5,927,805) in view of Mendelovich.
Regarding claim 13, Hilger et al. disclose a child chair comprising: a seat body comprising: a seat portion 52;a first lateral side 36 extending upward in a first, non-parallel direction from the seat portion; and a second lateral side 36 extending upward in the first direction from the seat portion, the first and second lateral sides defining lateral sides of a space in which a child sits in the child; and a retainer band 44 removably coupled (in 48) the seat body, the retainer band configured to retain a child in the seat body when the retainer band is coupled with the seat body, the retainer band comprising:; a first lateral portion 46 configured to be removably coupled with the first lateral side; and a second lateral portion 46 configured to be removably coupled with the second lateral side.
However, Hilger et al. fail to disclose a central portion configured to be removably coupled with the seat portion.
Instead, Mendelovich discloses a central portion 26 configured to be removably coupled with the seat portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mendelovich and use removable central portion in the invention of Hilger et al. in order to make it compact and reduce packaging cost.
Regarding claim 14, Mendelovich discloses a leg assembly coupled to the seat body, the leg assembly comprising: a plurality of legs, each leg comprising: a lower portion 44 and an upper portion 34, wherein the upper portion is removably coupled with the seat body, wherein the lower portion is selectively removably coupled with the upper leg portion and with the seat body; and a foot 62, wherein the foot is selectively removably coupled with the upper leg portion and with the lower leg portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mendelovich and a foot with the invention of Hilger et al in order to prevent any injuries or accidents.
Regarding claim 15, Hilger et al. as modified with Mendelovich discloses each foot 62 is further selectively removable coupled with the seat body.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilger et al. (5,927,805) in view of Mendelovich, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kennedy et al.
Regarding claim 16, Kennedy discloses a footrest 21 configured to be removably coupled to first and second legs of the plurality of legs, the footrest comprising: a first projection 29 configured to removably mate with a slot 28 of the first leg; and a second projection 29 configured to removably mate with a slot 28 of the second leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kennedy and use the footrest in the invention of Hilger et al. in order to provide additional comfort with low cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There are many similarities and dissimilarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Hilger et al. However, Hilger et al. fail to disclose the central portion, the first lateral portion, and the second lateral portion are a single component; a runner removably coupled with the retainer band; and a tray, coupled to the runner and configured to slide along the runner to adjust a depth of the tray from the seat body.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Claims 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 18, Kennedy et al. fail to disclose the first stadium projection and the second stadium projection are configured to mate with the first and second slots in the first orientation in which the footrest is a first height and the second orientation in which the footrest is a second height.
Regarding claim 20, Kennedy et al. fail to disclose the first and second slots are vertical slots with an open upper portion to permit the stadium projections to be removed and inserted and a closed lower portion to retain the inserted stadium projections.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
