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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/714,584 filed on 05/30/2024.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/20/2024 and 3/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because e.g. fig. 2 has callouts indicating the wrong portion(s) (circled).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KR-20-2009-0007215, hereinafter D1 (cited by applicant).
PNG
media_image2.png
874
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a full-sponge compressible sofa, wherein the full-sponge compressible sofa comprises a sponge mounting seat (collectively 130 and 140) and at least one sponge sofa seat (collectively 150 and 120) provided on the sponge mounting seat (fig. 3 shows assembled state), the sponge mounting seat (collectively 130 and 140) comprises a base (140) and two armrests (pair of 130) symmetrically arranged on the base (fig. 2), each armrest (130) comprises an armrest main body (portion of 130 not identified as a flange infra) and a limiting flange (see annotated figure 2) provided on one side of the armrest main body (fig. 2), each sponge sofa seat (collectively 150 and 120) comprises a seat cushion (150) and a backrest (120) provided on one end of the seat cushion (120 is provided on 150), the side of either one of the armrests (130) provided with the limiting flange (see annotated figure 2) faces the other armrest (fig. 2 shows sides facing); when (note the use of ‘when’ is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “When” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The function which follows ‘when’ is an inherent characteristic of the prior art structure as evidenced by the figures) the sponge sofa seat (collectively 1 and 4) is mounted on the sponge mounting seat (as in fig. 3), the limiting flange of each armrest abuts against the seat cushion of one sponge sofa seat (see annotated figure 3 below), so as to limit the position of the sponge sofa seat on the sponge mounting seat (flange provides constraint in assembled position due to overlap between 130 and 150).
PNG
media_image3.png
770
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the base and the armrests are integrally formed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the base and armrests integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
As to claim 3.
D1 discloses wherein the base comprises two base main bodies (151 and 152), the two armrests are respectively arranged on the two base main bodies (fig. 3).
As to claim 4.
D1 discloses wherein in an extension direction of the armrest main body (fig. 3), a length of the limiting flange is less than a length of the armrest main body (see annotated figure 3), and an end head of one end of the limiting flange is flush with an end head of one end of the armrest main body (see annotated figure 3).
As to claim 5.
D1 discloses wherein a sidewall of a side of the backrest facing the seat cushion is arranged obliquely (fig. 3), and an included angle between the seat cushion and the backrest is an obtuse angle (fig. 3).
As to claim 6.
D1 discloses wherein an interval distance between the two armrest main bodies (distance between 130) is equal to integer multiple of a length of the seat cushion (fig. 3 shows multiple seats between 130).
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 of this title, 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.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of CN 110051160 A, hereinafter D2.
PNG
media_image4.png
989
910
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D2:
[Claim 7] wherein a sponge mounting seat (sofa main body 1) further comprises at least one mounting protrusion (rib 14) provided at a side of the base (side of 1 in fig. 4) facing a sponge sofa seat (cushion 2);
[claim 8] wherein each sponge sofa seat (cushion 2) further comprises a mounting groove (groove 15) provided at a side of the seat cushion facing the sponge mounting seat (fig. 4), the mounting groove (groove 15) and the mounting protrusion (rib 14) correspond to each other (as in fig. 4), the mounting groove (groove 15)s and the mounting protrusions (ribs 14) correspond to each other (as in fig. 4), and between the mounting groove (groove 15) and the mounting protrusion there is interference fit (fig. 4 shows no fasteners and the fact that 14 touches 15 indicates at least some degree of ‘interference’).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to provide the claimed limitations for the purpose of providing a secure connection between the seat base and the seat cushion to prevent migration of the seat cushion out of position during routine use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Todd Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, Woody LEE can be reached on (571) 272-1051. 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.
J. Todd Newton, Esq.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/J. Todd Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 8/4/2025