DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/671,168 filed 5/22/2024 which claims priority to TAIWAN 113204658 5/8/2024.
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
Claims 1 and 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is drafted without a clear transition from preamble to claim body. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this claim as though “comprising” (line 1) is ending the preamble and the limitation following “ a rotatable chair base” (line 1-2) is beginning the claim body. It should further be noted that in Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., the Federal Circuit Court determined that: (a) in claims that do not have a transition phrase formally denoting a preamble, terms interpreted by the Examiner as being part of the preamble are not substantive limitations of the claims and should not be afforded patentable weight despite the lack of any transition phrases, and (b) Applicants should avoid such “poor claim drafting” by including a transition word to clearly delineate between the preamble and the body. Recommend adding a “:” after the word comprising.
In claim 1, ln 12-15 read as method steps. As best understood, the claim is directed to an apparatus and the movement of the linkage bar set, leg rest, sliding plate, and backrest described in lines 12-15 is functional. Recommend rephrasing.
In claim 3, ln 10-11: the recitation of the drive device controlled by a controller appears duplicative of a recitation in claim 1, ln 13-14
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai (US 2005/0146167 A1)(hereinafter Tai) in view of LaPointe (US 9010851 B2)(hereinafter LaPointe).
RE Claim 1: Tai discloses an electrically operated multi-functional chair (recliner 10), comprising:
a rotatable chair base (22),
a seat (20),
a backrest (30), and
a leg rest (40) that can be folded out from below the seat (Figs 2-5),
wherein the rotatable chair base is connected to the underside of the seat and the rotatable chair base allows the seat to rotate (Fig 1, para 0014);
the seat is a part on which the user can sit (seat 20 for sitting);
the seat has a drive device (60) installed thereunder (para 0018-0019);
the seat and the leg rest are connected through a linkage bar set (41, 50; para 0016), wherein the drive device can drive the linkage bar set to fold the leg rest out from below the seat (para 0016-0020);
the backrest is disposed in one side of the seat (Fig 1);
accordingly, the leg rest, moved by the linkage bar set which is driven by the drive device, is folded out from below the seat (para 0016-0020), and
the drive device drives the backrest to recline synchronously to create an effect of reclining/lying (para 0022).
Tai does not explicitly teach the backrest is pivoted to a sliding plate; the sliding plate is connected to the drive device; and wherein the drive device is controlled by a controller; the drive device synchronously drives the sliding plate to move, making the backrest to recline synchronously and to create an effect of reclining/lying.
However, LaPointe teaches a reclining seat (analogous art) with a seat, a leg rest (26), a back rest, a drive, and a linkage bar set (24) (Figs 1-6 and 10).
LaPointe further teaches the backrest (18) is pivoted to a sliding plate (slide frame 62 per col 4, ln 29); the sliding plate is connected to the drive device (col 4, ln 15-25 and 25-40); and wherein the drive device is controlled by a controller (33, also control device 34 for independent operation of various motions of furniture 10); the drive device synchronously drives the sliding plate to move, making the backrest to recline synchronously and to create an effect of reclining/lying (Fig 10)(col 4, ln 20-23: “…drive or second mechanism 57. Second mechanism 57 includes a drive or second motor 56 which is responsible for extension and retraction of the leg rest member 26 as well as the rotation of the seatback member 18”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai in view of LaPointe such that the backrest is pivoted to a sliding plate; the sliding plate is connected to the drive device; and wherein the drive device is controlled by a controller; the drive device synchronously drives the sliding plate to move, making the backrest to recline synchronously and to create an effect of reclining/lying as taught by LaPointe for the advantages of providing seating with various positions to improve user comfort (Tai para 0003).
RE Claim 2: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1, and Tai further discloses wherein the drive device can be an electric cylinder, an electric push bar, or a linear drive equipment (hydraulic cylinder 50 – linear actuator that converts fluid pressure into mechanical force to move loads in a straight line).
RE Claim 3: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1.
wherein the linkage bar set comprises a first connecting bar and a second connecting bar, both configured in a V shape (Fig 2, Fig 5);
a first end of the first connecting bar (43, 46, 47) is connected to the seat toward the backend thereof (Fig 2); a second end of the first connecting bar (43, 46, 47) is connected to the leg rest near the backend thereof (Fig 2);
a first end of the second connecting bar (44, 45) is connected to the seat at a location toward the frontend thereof (Fig 2, 5); a second end of the second connecting bar (44, 45) is connected to the leg rest near the frontend thereof (Fig 2, 5);
a fulcrum (connection between 45, 46, 43) is disposed on and between the first connecting bar and the second connecting bar (Fig 2, Fig 5);
a third connecting bar (51) is disposed on the lower area of the first end of the second connecting bar (Figs 2, 5); an extension bar (51) of the drive device (60) is connected to the third connecting bar (51)(compare with applicant’s 64 and 51 which appear to be portions of the same bar); and
driving the extension bar extending forward, which can move the third connecting bar and force the first connecting bar and the second connecting bar to move forward and fold out the leg rest from below the seat (para 0020, 0022).
LaPointe teaches the drive device is controlled by a controller (see claim 1).
RE Claim 4: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 3.
Tai further discloses wherein the backrest is pivoted to the seat through a first pivot end (Figs 2, 5).
LaPointe teaches the backrest is pivoted to a sliding plate through a second pivot end (col 4, ln 15-40); one end of the sliding plate, opposite to the second pivot end, is connected to the first end of the first connecting bar of the linkage bar set (col 4, ln 15-40); when the drive device drives the leg rest to fold out, the sliding plate is driven by the first connecting bar, forcing the backrest to gradually leaning downward to a flat position (col 4, ln 15-40).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view of LaPointe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Botts (US 7,774,880 B1)(hereinafter Botts).
RE Claim 5: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1.
Tai as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the seat is a soft foam seat pad having a layer of fleece fabric thereon.
However, Botts teaches a seat (analogous art). Botts further teaches further wherein the seat is a soft foam seat pad having a layer of fleece fabric thereon (col 3, ln 20-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai (as modified) in view of Botts such that wherein the seat is a soft foam seat pad having a layer of fleece fabric thereon as taught by Botts for the advantages of comfortability for the user.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view of LaPointe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer (US 20100217164 A1)(hereinafter Meyer).
RE Claim 6: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1.
Tai does not explicitly teach wherein the backrest further comprises a backrest cushion made of mesh fabric.
However, Meyer teaches a chair with a backrest (analogous art) and further teaches the backrest further comprises a backrest cushion made of mesh fabric (para 0014-0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai (as modified) in view of Meyer such that the backrest further comprises a backrest cushion made of mesh fabric by Meyer for the advantages of comfortability to the user.
RE Claim 7: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 6, and Meyer further discloses wherein the backrest cushion is equipped with a massage device (para 0015; massage unit 38).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai, LaPointe, and Meyer as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2020/0405059 A1)(hereinafter Chen).
RE Claim 8: Tai (as modified) discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 7.
Meyer further discloses wherein a headrest is disposed on the backrest cushion (not numbered, see Figs 1-3).
Tai as modified does not explicitly teach the headrest further comprises a L-shape handle for adjusting the headrest; the backrest cushion comprises an adjustment slot to adjust the height of the L-shape handle with respect to the adjustment slot, which is a function for adjusting the height of the headrest; the headrest has a rotating end, so that the headrest can rotate while pivoting around the rotating end in order to adjust the angle of the headrest.
However, Chen teaches a chair with a backrest and headrest (analogous art). Chen further teaches the headrest further comprises a L-shape handle for adjusting the headrest (formed by 10, 12); the backrest cushion comprises an adjustment slot (within 13) to adjust the height of the L-shape handle with respect to the adjustment slot, which is a function for adjusting the height of the headrest (para 0011-0014); the headrest has a rotating end, so that the headrest can rotate while pivoting around the rotating end in order to adjust the angle of the headrest (per para 0011; headrest 11 pivotally connected to the support 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai as modified in view of Chen such that the headrest further comprises a L-shape handle for adjusting the headrest; the backrest cushion comprises an adjustment slot to adjust the height of the L-shape handle with respect to the adjustment slot, which is a function for adjusting the height of the headrest; the headrest has a rotating end, so that the headrest can rotate while pivoting around the rotating end in order to adjust the angle of the headrest as taught by Chen for the advantages of for the advantages of providing seating with various positions to improve user comfort (Tai para 0003).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view of LaPointe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bock (US 10,537,176)(hereinafter Bock).
RE Claim 9: Tai as modified discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1.
Tai discloses both sides of the seat are disposed with an armrest separately (Fig 1) and an armrest pad (21; Fig 2).
Tai does not explicitly teach the armrest comprises an armrest height-adjustable unit, an armrest angle-adjustable unit, and an armrest pad; the armrest height-adjustable unit can adjust the height of the armrest; the armrest angle-adjustable unit, disposed between the armrest height-adjustable unit and the armrest pad, can adjust the angle in the horizontal direction and the tilt angle of the armrest pad.
However, Bock teaches an armrest for a chair (analogous art).
Bock further teaches the armrest comprises an armrest height-adjustable unit (col 4, ln 41 -55), an armrest angle-adjustable unit (col 4, ln 55-65); and armrest pad (9), the armrest height-adjustable unit can adjust the height of the armrest (col 4, ln 41-55); the armrest angle-adjustable unit (approximately near 8), disposed between the armrest height-adjustable unit (2) and the armrest pad (9) can adjust the angle in the horizontal direction and the tilt angle of the armrest pad (col 4, ln 41-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai as modified in view of Bock such that the armrest comprises an armrest height-adjustable unit, an armrest angle-adjustable unit, and an armrest pad; the armrest height-adjustable unit can adjust the height of the armrest; the armrest angle-adjustable unit, disposed between the armrest height-adjustable unit and the armrest pad, can adjust the angle in the horizontal direction and the tilt angle of the armrest pad as taught by Bock for the advantages of adjustability for individuals of differing sizes.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view of LaPointe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gillstrom (US 11,918,122 B2)(hereinafter Gillstrom).
RE Claim 10: Tai (as modified) discloses the electrically operated multi-functional chair as claimed in Claim 1.
LaPointe teaches a control module (34) so that so that the user can adjust the reclining angle of the backrest and the tilt angle of the leg rest.
But does not explicitly teach wherein the controller can further have a wireless control module, so that the user can adjust the device remotely by controlling the drive device through the wireless control module.
However, Gillstrom teaches an adjustable chair (analogous art). Gillstrom further teaches adjusting the device remotely by controlling the drive device through the wireless control module(col 8, ln 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tai (as modified) in view of Gillstrom such that the controller can further have a wireless control module, so that the user can adjust the reclining angle of the backrest and the tilt angle of the leg rest remotely by controlling the drive device through the wireless control module as taught by Gillstrom for the advantages of adjustability for better ergonomics and comfortability for the user (col 1, ln 45-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various adjustable seats with back rests and leg rests. The cited prior art also include various linkage bar assemblies and control mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644