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 § 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) 1-3, 6, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (9,585,484) in view of Eames et al. (4,047,757).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses a load-supporting structure 10 for a chair 1, comprising: a receiving surface component 22 provided with a curved receiving surface (figures 7, 8) configured to receive a load from a seated person; a load supporter 30 supporting the receiving surface component from a back side of the receiving surface.
However, Tsai fails to disclose a curved shape-changing portion configured to change a curvature radius of the receiving surface from a curvature radius in an initial state thereof to a greater curvature radius than that in the initial state in accordance with a load received by the receiving surface component, wherein the receiving surface component generates a biasing force for returning the curvature radius of the receiving surface to that in the initial state.
Instead, Eames et al. disclose a curved shape-changing portion 28, 29 configured to change a curvature radius of the receiving surface from a curvature radius in an initial state thereof to a greater curvature radius 28’, 29’ (figure 5) than that in the initial state in accordance with a load received by the receiving surface component, wherein the receiving surface component generates a biasing force for returning the curvature radius of the receiving surface to that in the initial state (col. 3, lines 25-55)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Eames et al. and use a resilient receiving surface in the invention of Tsai because it provides additional support with low cost.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai as modified with Emaes et al. further disclose the curved shape-changing portion is configured of free end portions on both sides of the receiving surface component 22 in a width direction, the free end portions being not supported by the load supporter, and a supported portion of the receiving surface component supported by the load supporter 30 (figure 7 of Tsai) on an inner side of the free end portions in the width direction.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai further discloses the supported portion includes two supported portions 22 provided to be spaced apart from each other in the width direction.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai discloses the receiving surface component forms a backrest plate (figures 1-8).
Regarding claim 10. Eames et al. disclose the receiving surface component forms a seat plate 17. 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 Eames et al. and use a resilient seat surface in the invention of Tsai because it provides additional support with low cost.
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses a chair comprising: the load-supporting structure for a chair according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (9,585,484) in view of Eames et al. (4,047,757), as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Desvaux De Marigny (11,413,181).
Regarding claim 4, Desvaux De Marigny discloses the load supporter includes two support portions 10, 11 supporting the two supported portions 2-4, a leaf spring portion 61 connecting the two support portions and configured to push a position between the two supported portions from the load supporter side to the receiving surface component side in accordance with the load received by the receiving surface component (col 7, lines 1-15).
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 Desvaux De Marigny and use a leaf spring to support the load supporter in the invention of Tsai as modified in order to prevent any damages or injuries while providing additional comfort.
Regarding claim 5, Desvaux De Marigny discloses the leaf spring portion uses a restoring force thereof for returning from an elastic deformed state when the receiving surface component receives a load to an initial state, in addition to the biasing force of the receiving surface component, as a biasing force for returning the curvature radius of the receiving surface to that in the initial state (col. 6, lines 60-67, col. 7, lines 1-15).
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 Desvaux De Marigny and use a leaf spring to support the load supporter in the invention of Tsai as modified in order to prevent any damages or injuries while providing additional comfort.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (9,585,484) in view of Eames et al. (4,047,757), as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Birk et al. (7,658,448).
Regarding claim 7, Birk et al. disclose the backrest plate includes a frame portion 9 forming an external shape of the backrest plate, and a plurality of strip-shaped portions separated through a slit 92 inside the frame 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 Birk et al. and use a plurality of portion by slit in the invention of Tsai for the purpose of reduce material and cost.
Regarding claim 8, Birk et al. disclose the plurality of strip-shaped portions include two strip-shaped portions that are separated right and left through the slit 92 at a central portion of the backrest plate in a width direction, and an inner end portion of each of the two strip-shaped portions in the width direction is supported by the load supporter 61 at the central portion of the backrest plate in the width direction.
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 Birk et al. and use a plurality of portion by slit in the invention of Tsai for the purpose of reduce material and cost.
Regarding claim 9, Tsai as modified disclose the inner end portion of each of the two strip-shaped portions in the width direction includes a rotating shaft 33 (Tsai) that is rotatably supported by the load supporter 31 on an axis extending in an up-down direction.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (9,585,484) in view of Eames et al. (4,047,757), as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Fleming et al. (4,660,887).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai as modified with Eames et al. disclose the seat plate includes two plate portions formed to be spaced apart from each other in a width direction.
However, Tsai as modified fail to disclose mesh plate. Instead, Fleming et al. disclose mesh portions 102 (figure 1-3).
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 Flemign et al. and use a plurality of portion by slit in the invention of Tsai for the purpose of reduce material and cost.
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