DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11918125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims generally provide for a modular chair comprising a support structure including a frame, a membrane/fabric designed to support a user, an edge attached to the frame, a guide, a slider accommodated within a part of the guide, a protuberance, a receiving portion configured to accommodate the protuberance such that the frame, membrane, and slider are attached. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said secondary filament" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said secondary filament" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said secondary filament" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20090013172 U (hereinafter, the ‘172 document).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘172 document teaches a modular chair comprising: a support structure including a frame (Figure 1) extending at least in part along an extension trajectory, a membrane (16) including a support surface designed to support a user, an edge (S) designed to be at least partially attached to said frame (12', 14’), and a tubular guide (S') arranged at said edge (S), a slider (12, 14) defining an extension direction at least partially parallel to said extension trajectory and accommodated within at least part of said guide (S’), and wherein said frame (12', 14’) includes at least one protuberance (5) protruding in a direction incident to said extension trajectory, and said slider (12, 14) includes at least one receiving portion (15) configured to accommodate at least part of said protuberance (5) in such a way as to firmly attach, at least one fixed point, said frame (12', 14’), said membrane (16), and said slider (12, 14; ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein said extension trajectory rotates about at least two main axes in three-dimensional space in such a way that said frame determines a complex curvilinear path extending in space in a three-dimensional way (inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein said protuberance includes at least one tooth (5) extending perpendicularly to said extension trajectory and said slider (12, 14) comprises at least one hole making said receiving portion (15) and configured to accommodate at least part of said tooth and said membrane (as depicted in Figure 1 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 8, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein said slider (4) is slidably bound within said guide in such a way that it can be extracted along said extension direction by said membrane (as depicted in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1,wherein said slider is integrated into said membrane and attached within said guide in such a way that it is locked along said extension direction in relation to said membrane (Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, the ‘172 document teaches a method for making a modular chair comprising: - providing a support structure including at least one frame (Figure 1) extending along an extension trajectory and including at least one protuberance (5) protruding skew to said extension trajectory - providing a membrane (16) including a support surface designed to support a user (Figure 1), an edge (S) designed to be at least partially attached to said frame (12’, 14’), and a tubular guide (S’) arranged at said edge (S), - inserting a slider (12, 14), which includes at least one receiving portion (15) configured to accommodate at least part of said protuberance (5), within said guide (S’), and characterized in that - hooking said receiving portion onto said protuberance in such a way as to firmly attach at least one fixed point said frame, said membrane, and said slider (as depicted in Figures 1-2. ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, comprising: - attaching said slider and said guide together in such a way as to lock said slider and said guide along said extension direction between said insertion step and said hooking step (as depicted in Figures 1-2).
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090013172 U (hereinafter, the ‘172 document).
Regarding claim 12, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein a secondary filament is woven within said weave at said guide in such a way as to be "hooked in English" or in "false English rib". However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the English rib is a well-known knitting stitch (see Wikipedia: List of Knitting Stitches for extrinsic supporting evidence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to specify that the type of knit-technique used for the weave at the guide in the ‘172 document is an English rib, in order to incorporate shaping for the weave at the guide.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090013172 U (hereinafter, the ‘172 document) in view of Rathgeber (EP 2319967 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein said protuberance includes a bar (12’, 14’) extending continuously parallel to said extension trajectory (Figure 1) and said slider (12, 14) includes an open tubular element extending along said extension direction (Figures 1 and 2) along planes perpendicular to said extension direction (Figure 1) making said receiving portion (15) and configured to trap at least part of said bar (12’, 14’) and of said membrane (as depicted in Figure 2). The ‘172 document fails to specifically teach wherein the slider defines a c-shaped profile with the tubular element. However, use of counter-shaped c-shaped profiles as slides are a well known alternative in the art as is evidenced by Figure 1, elements 3 and 4 of Rathgeber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a C-shaped profile capable of receiving a counter-shaped T-shaped slider, in order to provide a slider with increased load-bearing capabilities.
Regarding claim 7, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 6, wherein said protuberance and said open tubular element are counter-shaped to each other (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of the ‘172 document).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090013172 U (hereinafter, the ‘172 document) in view of Ulmer (DE 102014003099 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein said membrane includes a periodic weave the base of which comprises at least one main filament woven into a mesh and said support surface comprises one or more portions with controlled behavior including said periodic weave wherein at least one secondary filament is inserted, the secondary filament being arranged in a weft along a predetermined trajectory in such a way as to vary, in a controlled manner, the mechanical behavior of said support surface at said portions with controlled behavior by varying the type or number of said secondary filaments. However, use of a periodic weave comprising a main filament and secondary filament arranged in a weft along a predetermined trajectory in a manner that varies in a controlled manner, by varying the type and number of secondary filaments is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0042-0043, 0048, 0056-0058, 0072-0073] and Figures 3, 5-9, and 15 of Ulmer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the weave of Ulmer into the membrane of the ‘172 document, in order to provide a weave that opposes greater resistance loads (as taught by Ulmer).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein a secondary filament defines at least one winding within said guide in such a way as to create a row extending parallel to said guide at which said main filament and said secondary filament are locked and joined to each other. However, use of a periodic weave comprising a main filament and secondary filament arranged such that a filament defines a row extending parallel wherein the filaments are joined together is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0042-0043, 0048, 0056-0058, 0072-0073] and Figures 3, 5-9, and 15 of Ulmer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the weave of Ulmer into the membrane of the ‘172 document, in order to provide a weave that opposes greater resistance loads (as taught by Ulmer).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090013172 U (hereinafter, the ‘172 document) in view of Roell (US Patent No. 6227010).
Regarding claim 13, the ‘172 document teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein a secondary filament comprises at least one heat-shrink component in such a way that the local tension of said portions with controlled behavior can vary according to a heat to which said membrane is subjected. However, use of heat-shrinking portions of knits in order to cause the knit to contract to a defined tension for chairs is well known in the art as is evidenced by Col. 5, line 12- Col. 6, line 5 of Roell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the heat-shrinking method on the knit of the guide weave of the ‘172 document, in order to provide a defined tension such that the woven guide section could provide adequate structural support when in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday: 0500-1400, Thursday-Friday by appointment only.
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 at 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644