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 .
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) 1, 3-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rojas (7,416,248).
Regarding claim 1, Rojas discloses a piece of sitting or lying furniture 10, comprising: a support frame 12a,12b, 30-34; an operating device configured for a user to sit on, lie on or lean against, wherein the operating device includes a self-supporting main textile part 38 configured to react forces imparted upon the operating device (flexible panel) into the support frame self-acting by tensions formed in the main textile part, wherein the main textile part 38 is configured as a flat contexture, wherein the operating device includes at least one auxiliary unit group including at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 which are directly and jointly connected with at least one edge 44 of the main textile part 38 at least in sections, so that the main textile part 38 is directly supported at the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42, wherein the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 are attached at the support frame 32, 34 so that the main textile part 38 is indirectly supported by the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 at the support frame 30, and wherein the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 run from the at least one edge 44 of the main textile part 38 to different attachment locations at the support frame 32, 34.
Regarding claim 3, Rojas discloses the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 form at least an outer edge portion of the operating device or are arranged in at least one outer edge portion of the operating device.
Regarding claim 4, Rojas discloses the support frame is configured from different support frame parts 12a, 12b, 30-34, so that the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group are respectively attached at the different support frame parts.
Regarding claim 5, Rojas discloses the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 of the at least one auxiliary unit group are respectively formed by flat auxiliary contextures, and wherein auxiliary textile surfaces of the at least two auxiliary units are arranged at opposite slant angles starting from the at least one edge 44 of the main textile part 38 and measured relative to the main textile surface in a cross section perpendicular to a main textile surface of the main textile part.
Regarding claim 6, Rojas discloses the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 act jointly at each connection location of the at least one edge 44 of the main textile part 38 where the at least two auxiliary units are connected with the main textile part.
Regarding claim 7, Rojas discloses at least the main textile part 38, and at least one of the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 is formed by a woven material, knitted material or warp knitted material (col. 5, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Rojas discloses the main textile part 38 and at least one auxiliary unit 40, 42 of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary group, or the main textile part and plural similar auxiliary units of different auxiliary unit groups of the at least one auxiliary unit group are formed by a single piece of flat contexture (col. 4, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 9, Rojas discloses the at least two auxiliary units 40, 42 of the at least one auxiliary unit group are formed by a single piece flat contexture (col. 4, lines 56-67 all joined together acting as a single piece).
Regarding claim 10, Rojas discloses the main textile part and all the auxiliary units of all the auxiliary unit groups are respectively formed by separate flat contextures, and wherein the main textile part and all the auxiliary units are sewn together or welded together (col. 4, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 14, Rojas discloses an angle enclosed by auxiliary textile surfaces of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group and the main textile surface at the at least one edge of the main textile part is between 5° and 90°, or between 25° and 85° degrees, or between 40° and 80° (see figures 1 and 2).
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) 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas.
Regarding claim 11, Rojas fails to disclose a tensile stiffness of the main textile part is smaller than a tensile stiffness of at least one auxiliary unit of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group, or greater than a tensile stiffnesses of all auxiliary units.
However, Rojas has no limitations that prevents from using different tensile strength for seat back and seat. Rojas also discloses any modifications are apparent to the user without departing from the scope of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use different tensile strength to provide maximum comfort, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an 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 12. Rojas fails to disclose a tensile stiffnesses of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group are different, and wherein a tensile stiffness of a first auxiliary unit of the at least two auxiliary units that extends upward at a slant angle relative to the main textile surface is greater than a tensile stiffness of a second auxiliary unit of the at least two auxiliary units that extends downward at a downward slant angle relative to the main textile surface.
However, Rojas has no limitations that prevents from using different tensile strength for seat back and seat. Rojas also discloses any modifications are apparent to the user without departing from the scope of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use different tensile strength to provide maximum comfort, 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 15, Rojas fails to disclose the main textile part and/or at least one auxiliary unit of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group is formed by an elastic textile material capable of elastically absorbing elongations of at least 2% or at least 2.5% or at least 3%.
However, Rojas has no limitations that prevents from using different tensile strength for seat back and seat. Rojas also discloses any modifications are apparent to the user without departing from the scope of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to any desired range to keep cost low, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas in view of Fritze Torsten (WO 2023017300 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Fritze Torsten discloses main textile part 3 and/or at least one auxiliary unit of the at least two auxiliary units of the at least one auxiliary unit group is configured with heat shrinking properties or formed by a heat shrinkable fabric (page 17, lines 9-22).
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 Fritze Torsten and use a heat shrinkable fabric in the invention of Rojas because it is simple to install.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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: There are many similarities and dissimilarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Rojas. Rojas fails to disclose the at least one edge of the main textile part includes at least two edges, wherein the at least one auxiliary unit group includes two auxiliary unit groups wherein the main textile part cooperates at least along opposite edges of the at least two edges respectively with the at least one auxiliary unit group, wherein a first edge of the opposite edges of the main textile part cooperates with an auxiliary unit of a first auxiliary unit group of the at least two auxiliary unit groups and with a second auxiliary unit of the first auxiliary unit group and a second edge of the opposite edges of the main textile part cooperates with a first auxiliary unit of a second auxiliary unit group of the at least two auxiliary unit groups and with a second auxiliary unit of the second auxiliary unit group of the at least two auxiliary unit groups.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tseng (6,783,183)
Chubb (3,981,538).
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