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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17, appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “two side walls that extend from both ends that extend from both ends”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “two side walls that extend from both ends”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the action shaft" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 is in improper dependent form because Claim 3 depends from Claim 2, which has been canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2013005883 A1, provided by Applicant in IDS dated 08/26/2025).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2013005883 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a chair (Fig. 1) comprising:
a support structure (110, Fig. 6a);
a backrest (120, Fig. 3) rotatably supported with respect to the support structure on an axis in a width direction of the support structure (181, Fig. 5a-5b) and being displaceable from an initial state (state of Fig. 5a) to an inclined state of being inclined rearward (state of Fig. 5b);
a biasing member configured to bias the backrest in the inclined state, in a direction of returning to the initial state (160, Fig. 2);
an adjuster configured to adjust a biasing force of the biasing member (140, Fig. 3); and
an operating member joined to the adjuster and configured to operate the adjuster (152, Fig. 3), wherein
the biasing member is provided in the backrest or the support structure 9(160 is provided in 110, Fig. 2),
the adjuster is provided in the backrest (140 is provided in 120, Fig. 3), and
the operating member is disposed behind the axis (152 is behind 181, Fig. 2) and on one side of the backrest in the width direction (Fig. 2),
the backrest includes
a rear wall (bracket 130, Fig. 3), and
two side walls that extend from both ends that extend from both ends in the width direction of the rear wall (side walls of 121, Fig. 3), and spaced apart from each other in the width direction (Fig. 3),
the adjuster is disposed between the two side walls (140 is between side walls of 121, Fig. 3), and
the operating member includes an operation shaft extending in the width direction (152, Fig. 3) and having an outer end portion in the width direction (outer end of 152, Fig. 3) and an inner portion in the width direction (152b, Fig. 4), the outer end portion protruding outward from a space between the two side walls (outer end of 152 protrudes outward, Fig. 3), and the inner portion being joined to the adjuster at a position between the two side walls (152b is joined to 140 via 153/154, Fig. 4), and
an operation lever provided in the outer end portion of the operation shaft (152a, Fig. 4),
the adjuster includes an acting member that acts on the biasing member (140, Fig. 6a and Pg. 4 of attached translation, paras. 5-6), and
a support member that movably supports the acting member (151, Fig. 3), and
the support member is fixed to the rear wall of the backrest (151 is fixed to 130, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 2, wherein the adjuster is located above the support structure (140 is located above 110, Fig. 6a).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 1, wherein the acting member includes an action shaft that supports the biasing member (191b, Fig. 6a), and an adjustment shaft that is disposed such that an axis direction thereof is parallel with a front- rear direction when viewed from above and that enables the action shaft to move in the axis direction (192b, Fig. 6a), and the action shaft is displaced along the adjustment shaft by operating the operating member (Pg. 5 of attached translation, paras. 11-12).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 1, wherein the biasing member includes a spring that biases the backrest in the inclined state (160, Fig. 6a), in the direction of returning to the initial state (Pg. 2 of attached translation, para. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 6, wherein the spring is a compression coil spring that makes bias in a front-rear direction above the support structure (Fig. 6a and Pg. 2 of attached translation, paras. 5-6), and
a rear end portion of the compression coil spring is located to be closer to the backrest than a front end portion of the compression coil spring is (Fig. 6a) and is joined to the adjuster (via 191a, see Fig. 6a).
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2013005883 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Takehara et al. (JP 2000184927 A), hereafter Takehara.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 7, wherein
a seat-receiving member (170 including 182, Fig. 5a),
a front end portion of the compression coil spring is fixed to a front portion of the seat-receiving member (160 is fixed to 182 of 170, Fig. 6a).
Kim is silent about a seat is supported at an upper portion of the support structure to be slidable in the front-rear direction, and
the seat-receiving member moves rearward to compress the compression coil spring from a front of the compression coil spring, when the backrest is displaced toward the inclined state.
Takehara teaches a seat (3) supported to be slidable in the front-rear direction (via 14, Fig. 1), and
the seat-receiving member moves rearward to compress a similar spring from the front of the spring, when the similar backrest is displaced toward the inclined state (via 24 and 14, Fig. 1, and see Pg. 3 of attached translation, last para. – Pg. 4, second para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chair of Kim, with a seat supported to be slidable in the front-rear direction as taught by Takehara, whereby Kim’s seat receiving member moves rearward to compress the compression coil spring from front when the backrest is displaced toward the inclined state, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced ergonomics, such as improved comfort during tilting (Takehara, Abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2013005883 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the chair according to claim 1.
Kim is silent about wherein the biasing member includes two compression coil springs that bias the backrest in the inclined state, in the direction of returning to the initial state, and spaced apart from each other in the width direction,
two spring front end-supporting portions provided in front end portions of the compression coil springs, and
two spring rear end-supporting portions provided in rear end portions of the compression coil springs, the action shaft includes an engaging portion engaged with the adjustment shaft, and
two shaft portions respectively extending to both sides of the engaging portion in the width direction, and
the two spring rear end-supporting portions of the biasing member are respectively joined to the two shaft portions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention for the biasing member to include two compression coil springs, rather than a single spring, for redundancy and enhanced durability of the chair, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1, filed 02/18/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on Pg. 7-9 with respect to Claim 1:
“None of the cited references…renders obvious independent claim 1….Specifically, the claimed “backrest” in the “chair” is a member that supports the back of a seated person….For the sake of arguments, an element of Kim which could potentially be relied on to correspond to the claimed backrest be a backboard (not shown) and backboard connection part 112a fixed to the backboard…In Kim, the backrest appears to simply refer to “a backboard and the backboard connection part 122a fixed to the backboard.” In another word, the member 120 in Kim is not fixed to the backboard, which does not correspond to a backrest. Further, a configuration where the member 140 is provided in the member 120 does not correspond to the claimed chair, in which an adjuster is provided in the backrest”….”…although the member 120 includes two side walls…it does not include any member corresponding to the claimed rear wall positioned between two side walls to which the support member is fixed…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that Kim’s “back connection bracket 120” may be interpreted as part of a backrest. Examiner notes that Applicant has agreed above that backboard connection part 122a could be relied upon to correspond to the claimed backrest, and Kim clearly discloses that 122a is part of “back connection bracket 120”. See Pg. 4 of attached translation, 4th para. from bottom, “…the back connection bracket 120 has a lower portion 121 having a base 121a…and an upper portion having a back connector 112a to which the backplate is connected.” Additionally, Examiner has provided a new interpretation of Kim which interprets bracket 130 as the rear wall. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Kim discloses the “backrest” and “rear wall” of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights