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 filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Mendelovich discloses separate central and lateral extending component and fails to disclose a single component.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that requires the central and lateral portion to be a single component. Claim 1 only requires lateral portion extending from the central portion. Mendelovich clearly discloses part 18, 22 and 26 are connected. The lateral extending portion 22, 18 and extended from the central portion 26. The central portion attached to the lateral portions also function as one single unit when in use.
Claim 13, applicant argues that Mendelovich discloses side portion which are part of the leg assembly and not the part of seat body or seat portion.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mendelovich figures clearly shows a portion of leg assembly attaches to the seat bottom and another portion attaches to the seat back creating a side portion between the seat back and seat portion. Claim 13 only requires a side portion non parallel to the seat portion. Mendelovich clearly discloses the limitations (see figure A)
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues that Tretter fails to disclose a stadium shape projection.
However, the examiner respectfully the shape of the projections are not patentably distinct subject matter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, Tretter discloses a rectangular shaped projections and have no limitations that prevents from using stadium shape projections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any shape to reduce cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues that Tretter fails to disclose vertical slots.
However, Tretter discloses the slots 40 are arranged in vertical direction on the legs. Furthermore, they are inclined to have vertical orientation that prevents the footrest from slipping out.
All dependent claims stand rejected.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
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.
(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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mendelovich (5,806,922).
Regarding claim 13, Mendelovich discloses a child chair 10 comprising: a seat body comprising: a seat portion 14; a first lateral side (the side of leg extending from connection point 20) extending in a first, non-parallel direction from the seat portion; and a second lateral side (the side of leg extending from connection point 20) extending in the first direction from the seat portion; and a retainer band removably coupled with 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 central portion 26 configured to be removably coupled with the seat portion; a first lateral portion 18 configured to be removably coupled with the first lateral side; and a second lateral portion 18 configured to be removably coupled with the second lateral side.
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.
Regarding claim 15, Mendelovich discloses each foot 62 is further selectively removable coupled with the seat body.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelovich in view of Cone (5,527,090).
Regarding claim 1, Mendelovich discloses a child chair 10 comprising: a seat body 12; a generally T-shaped retainer band removably coupled with 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 central portion 26 configured to be removably coupled with the seat body; a first lateral portion 18 extending from the central portion and configured to be removably coupled with the seat body, wherein the first lateral portion, the central portion, and the seat body collectively define a first opening; and a second lateral portion 18 extending from the central portion and configured to be removably coupled with the seat body, wherein the second lateral portion, the central portion, and the seat body collectively define a second opening, a runner 24 removably coupled with the retainer band
However, Mendelovich fails to disclose a tray, coupled to the runner and configured to slide along the runner to adjust a depth of the tray from the seat body.
Instead, Cone discloses a tray 14 coupled to the runner 180 and configured to slide along the runner to adjust a depth of the tray from the seat body.
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 Cone and use a runner with a tray in the invention of Mendelovich for the purpose of accommodating users of all shape and size.
Regarding claim 2, Mendelovich further discloses the first lateral portion 18 and the second lateral portion 18 extend in opposite parallel directions from the central portion 26.
Regarding claim 3, Cone discloses the runner 180 is a first runner removably coupled to a first lateral side of the retainer band, the child chair further comprising: a second runner 180 removably coupled with a second lateral side of the retainer band, the tray 14 coupled to the first and second runners and configured to slide along the runners to adjust the depth of the tray from the seat body.
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 Cone and use a runner with a tray in the invention of Mendelovich for the purpose of accommodating users of all shape and size.
Regarding claim 4, Cone discloses a tray assembly, the tray assembly comprising: the tray 14; the runner; a latch 124/126 configured to secure the tray assembly to the retainer band; and a release button 128, 130 coupled to the latch and configured to release the latch responsive to user actuation of the button.
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 Cone and use latch with release button in the invention of Mendelovich because it is simple and cost efficient way to attach the tray and runner.
Regarding claim 5, Cone discloses the tray assembly 14 further comprises a base portion 16 comprising the runner 180 and the latch 124/126, the base portion configured to be coupled to the retainer band in a fixed position.
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 Cone and use a base with runner and latch in the invention of Mendelovich for the purpose of accommodating users of all shape and size.
Regarding claim 6, Mendelovich discloses the first and second lateral portions 180 are configured to be removably coupled with first and second lateral portions of the seat body 14.
Regarding claim 7, Mendelovich discloses a leg assembly comprising a plurality of legs 34, 44, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Mendelovich discloses the leg assembly further comprises a cross-member 58 (see figure 1B) assembly, the cross-member assembly configured to be coupled between the upper portion and the lower portion of each of the plurality of legs, the cross-member assembly comprising a plurality of cross-members, each extending between two respective legs when the cross-member assembly is coupled with the legs.
Regarding claim 9, Mendelovich discloses each leg further comprises a foot 62, wherein the foot is selectively removably coupled with the upper leg portion and with the lower leg portion.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelovich (5,806,922) in view of Cone (5,527,090), as applied to claims 1-9 above and further in view of Kennedy (US 2011/0062753).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kennedy discloses a first leg defining a first slot 25 and a second leg defining a second slot 25; a footrest 27 configured to be removably coupled to the first and second legs, the footrest comprising: a first projection 26 configured to removably mate with the slot of the first leg; and a second projection 26 configured to removably mate with the slot 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 Mendelovich in order to provide additional comfort with low cost.
Regarding claim 12, Kennedy discloses the first projection 26 and the second projection 26 are configured to mate with the first and second slots 27 in a first orientation in which the footrest is a first height and a second orientation in which the footrest is a second height.
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 multiple footrest heights in the invention of Mendelovich in order to accommodate users of all shape and size with low cost
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelovich (5,806,922) in view of Kennedy (US 2011/0062753).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected as set forth in claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tretter (1,401,834).
Regarding claim 17, Tretter discloses a child chair 5 comprising: a seat body; a first leg 7, coupled to the seat body, defining a first slot 40; a second leg 7, coupled to the seat body, defining a second slot 40; and a footrest 38 configured to be removably coupled to the first and second legs, the footrest comprising: a first projection 38 configured to removably mate with the slot of the first leg; and a second projection 38 configured to removably mate with the slot of the second leg.
Tretter fails to disclose a stadium shape projection.
However, the examiner respectfully the shape of the projections are not patentably distinct subject matter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, Tretter discloses a rectangular shaped projections and have no limitations that prevents from using stadium shape projections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any shape to reduce cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Tretter discloses the first projection and the second projection 39 are configured to mate with the first and second slots 40 in a first orientation in which the footrest is a first height and a second orientation in which the footrest is a second height.
Regarding claim 19, Tretter discloses the footrest further comprises a base portion 38 on which a user of the chair may rest the user's feet, the base portion vertically offset with respect to the first and second projections 39, whereby the base portion has the first height in the first orientation and the second height in the second orientation.
Regarding claim 20, Tretter discloses the first and second slots 40 are vertical slots with an open upper portion to permit the projections to be removed and inserted and a closed lower portion to retain the inserted projections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights