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 § 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 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation "the at least one support part bracket" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the support part bracket" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the support part bracket" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the support part bracket" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 12-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Homier et al. (3,471,198).
Regarding claim 12, Homier et al. disclose a height adjustment mechanism for a movable support part of a seating furniture, the height adjustment mechanism comprising: a guide rod 14 configured to be attached to a back part 12 of the seating furniture; a bracket support 20 displaceably guided on the guide rod in the longitudinal direction of the guide rod; at least one support bracket attached to the bracket support 24; a drive unit 16, attached to the back part of the seating furniture, having an electric motor 36, a drive shaft (58 connected to the shaft) drivable by the electric motor and with which the bracket support is displaceable along the guide rod by the electric motor; and a flexible traction drive 42, coupled to the bracket support and driven by the drive shaft, attached to the guide rod (via 44 and 60).
Regarding claim 13, Homier et al. disclose the flexible traction drive is a cable drive 42, belt drive, or chain drive.
Regarding claim 14, Homier et al. disclose fixing elements 28, which are spaced apart from one another and are arranged on the bracket support for releasably fixing free ends of bracket rods of the at least one support part bracket.
Regarding claim 17, Homier et al. disclose the bracket rods 24 of the support part bracket are guided in sliding guide sleeves that are inserted in receptacles in the back part.
Regarding claim 18, Homier et al. disclose a first driver 38 arranged on a traction means of the traction means drive, which is fixed in a driver mount 16 of the bracket support.
Regarding claim 19, Homier et al. disclose the traction means drive is a cable drive having a cable 42 with cable ends having second drivers fixed to a cable wheel 40 of the cable drive.
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) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homier et al. in view of Bartels (US 2003/0107253).
Regarding claim 15, Bartels discloses the fixing elements 5 has a spring housing with a spring element fixed 7 in the spring housing and an insertion funnel through which the respective free end, formed with a radial groove 5a, of one of the bracket rods 4 of the support part bracket is insertable into the spring housing and is latchable with the spring element with a predetermined spring force.
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 Bartels and use the spring bracket to hold the rods of the Homier et al. because it is simple, secure and cost efficient.
Regarding claim 16, Homier et al. disclose each of the spring elements is configured in such a way that when the predetermined spring force is exceeded, the respective bracket rod of the support part bracket is releasable from the latching with the spring element (see para 0023).
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 Bartels and use the spring bracket to hold the rods of the Homier et al. because it is simple, secure and cost efficient.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homier et al. in view of Nemoto (5,131,720).
Regarding claim 20, Nemoto discloses two limit switches 16a, 16b electrically coupled to the electric motor 22 arranged on the guide rod 7 to limit a travel path of the bracket support along the guide rod.
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 Nemoto and use two limit switches in the invention of Homier et al. for the purpose of preventing any damages.
Regarding claim 21, Nemoto discloses a plate 6 to the guide rod and on which the limit switches are arranged in variable positions.
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 Nemoto and use a base plate to mount the switches in the invention of Homier et al. in order to prevent any accidental damages.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected as set for in claim 12 above.
However, Homier et al. fail to disclose a seating furniture, comprising: a seat; a backrest arranged at an angle to the seat, having a back part accommodated in the backrest, and having a support part movable relative to the back part.
Instead, Nemoto discloses a seating furniture, comprising: a seat; a backrest arranged at an angle to the seat, having a back part accommodated in the backrest, and having a support part movable relative to the back part (see figure 1).
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 Nemoto and use a seat back and seat part in the invention of Homier et al. because it is simple, efficient.
Regarding claim 23, Homier et al. disclose the movable support part is a headrest or an upholstered part arranged on the back part.
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