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 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 a 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Fulton does not disclose a flap separate from the seat base, suggests several deficiencies related to the poles, that claim 41 is non-obvious in view of Fulton, and that the combination of Fulton and Caluwaert is improper.
Regarding the flap, while it is acknowledged that the Fulton design may vary somewhat from the invention, it is maintained that a “rearward portion of main, horizontal portion; generally at 14” forms a flap as currently recited. See Figure 2 showing the rearward portion having a generally different structure than the forward portion.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments related to the poles, several issues appear to be raised, but Applicant fails to specify the “problem with the poles” Fulton allegedly suffers from. Regarding the assertion that members 112 are not at an “end” of the blanket, see Figure 2 showing them adjacent the edge or rear end. Regarding the assertion that no upper retaining means are present proximate a free end, the rejections points to 86 and/or 102 as the upper retaining means. These are clearly arranged at the upper free end of the backrest; see figures. Regarding the assertion that 86 cannot be an upper retaining means and/or that upper ends of the poles are not received in retaining means, Applicant is directed to the language of the prior rejection. As clearly stated, “91 and 98 [are] received in 102 [upper retaining means] and 112; note that alternatively, member 102, etc. could be viewed as part of the poles and received in 86 [alternate upper retaining means].” Applicant’s indication of the presence of members 104, 106 in 86 is not relevant to the rejection as set forth. Applicant asserts that a combination of members 91, 98, 102, 104, and 106 cannot constitute a pole. Nowhere does the rejection suggest or require such an arrangement (notwithstanding that Applicant appears to define the poles this way himself on page 2 of the 7 July 2026 remarks).
Regarding the arguments related to the obviousness of claim 41 in view of Fulton, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments fail to address the relatively narrow modification proposed. That is, claim 41 is rejected under 35 USC 102. It is additionally or alternatively rejected under 35 USC 103 because “explicit description of the planes may not be present.” That is, Fulton’s figures show an arrangement as claimed, but because explicit dimensions may not be provided, it was made clear that minor variations in size, shape, and arrangement of components would routinely be made to improve comfort and support. Applicant’s arguments related to purported benefits of the invention and potential modifications to Fulton nowhere suggested in the rejection are moot.
Regarding the combination of Fulton and Caluwaert, it is maintained that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the teachings of Caluwaert in Fulton’s device to improve user comfort and support. The potential for additional weight and/or lessened convenience as suggested by Applicant would not impact this.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights