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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each group includes a shared set of features as recited in claim 1 (apparently intended as claim 41). This is not found persuasive because even if each group includes the features mentioned by Applicant (a flap, upper retaining means, two poles, and a particular angling), the groups nevertheless represent species with mutually exclusive retaining arrangements and/or pole/rod assemblies. Thus, even if claim 41 is generic to the disclosed species, other claims are directed to particular claimed groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 42, 43, 45, 48-55, 57, 59, and 60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 January 2026. Note that while Applicant withdrew claims 42, 43, 45, 52, 53, and 60; claims 48-51, 54, 55, 57, and 59 are also drawn to non-elected species (claims 48, 49, and 57 to Group II; claims 50, 51, 54, , 55, and 59 to Group IV).
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 41, 44, 46, 47, 56, and 58 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 41 recites the limitation "the plane" in lines 10-11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the internal envelopes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 44, 46, 47, 56, and 58 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fulton et al. (US Patent Number 9173493).
Regarding claim 41, Fulton discloses a surface chair comprising: a seat base (forward portion of the main, horizontal portion of 10, including 20, 60, etc.; generally at 16) for resting directly against a surface (it is intended to lay on the ground); a back rest (80) having a base end (at the seat base) and a free end (at an upper portion); and a flap (rearward portion of main, horizontal portion; generally at 14) connected to the seat base at a position proximate the base end (see figures); at least two upper retaining means (86 and/or 102) positioned proximate the free end; and at least two poles (at least 91, 98), where the seat base is connected to the back rest at the base end and where the flap has at least two lower retaining means (112) provided in a free end, and where the poles are arranged into a cross brace having first pole ends and second pole ends, such that each first end is received in an upper retaining means and each second end is retained by a lower retaining means (see at least Figures 2 and 6 showing such an arrangement with 91 and 98 received in 102 and 112; note that alternatively, member 102, etc. could be viewed as part of the poles and received in 86) and where the plane perpendicular to the surface that extends through the upper retaining means is closer to the base end that the plane perpendicular to the surface that extends through the lower retaining means (this is apparently the arrangement; see Figures 1 and 2, etc.). While Fulton is thus viewed as disclosing the arrangement as claimed, explicit description of the planes may not be present. Even if this were not clear however, changes in size, shape, and arrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the components arranged as claimed (e.g. by minor shifts in the positions of the retaining means and/or sizes of the poles or back rests) based on normal variation to improve user comfort and support.
Claim(s) 44 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton.
Regarding claim 44, Fulton discloses and/or renders obvious a chair as explained above but does not disclose the particular flap shape as claimed. Changes in component shape require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the flap shaped as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort or aesthetics for various users.
Regarding claim 58, Fulton discloses and/or renders obvious a chair as explained above but does not specify distances between retaining means. Changes in component size and shape require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the distances as claimed (e.g. by minor shifts in the positions of the retaining means) based on normal variation to improve comfort or support for various users.
Claim(s) 46, 47 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton in view of Caluwaert (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0332793). Fulton discloses and/or renders obvious a chair as explained above but does not specifically disclose padding material or cushion. Caluwaert discloses a related device including a seat base and back rest with open edges and padding material being able to be installed in an internal envelope (edges at 32 with padding internal) as well as additional cushioned segments hingedly attached to the seat base (see figures showing various hinged segments). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide padding and segments as taught by Caluwaert in Fulton’s device because this could improve user comfort and support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a range of related devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636