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 .
This is the first Office Action for the serial number 18/723,399, CHAIR, filed on 6/21/24.
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 4-7 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 4 ,line 6, “the seatback being connected to the rocking mechanism through the seatback frame” is indefinite and it should be ---the seatback being connected to the rocking mechanism through the seatback base--- for clarification.
Claims 5-7 are rejected as depending on rejected claim 4.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication # 2015/0201758 to Serber.
Serber teaches a chair comprising a seatback (23), a seat (22), a rocking mechanism (36) and a chair base (26-27). The seatback comprising a frame and a seatback base (71). The chair base comprising a central support (29). The rocking mechanism comprising a supporting base (31) and being arranged on the central support. The seat is being affixed to the rocking mechanism. The seatback is being connected to the rocking mechanism through the seatback base. The seat back frame comprising an intermediate transverse plate to which a vertical plate (45) is fastened with one end thereof. The vertical plate is being fastened to the seatback base with an opposite end thereof. The seatback base is being connected to the supporting base of the rocking mechanism. The chair further comprises an element of stop and adjustment (97-98) of an initial position of the seatback is attached to the vertical plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serber in view US Patent Application Publication # 2014/0103688 to Wilson.
Serber teaches the seatback frame further comprising an upper transverse plate (76), the intermediate transverse plate and a spring (51-52) connecting the upper transverse plate and intermediate transverse plate but fails to teach a gas strut installed between the upper transverse plate and the intermediate transverse plate. Wilson teaches the gas strut (280). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serber’s spring with gas strut as taught by Wilson to provide the same result “to return stroke from reclined back to upright” (section 0100 in Wilson’s invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication # 2017/0027328 to Su
US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0354254 to Collier
US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0067848 to Brauning
US Patent Application Publication # 2017/0354254 to Diffrient et al
The cited references above teach the chair with the rocking mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ALFRED J. WUJCIAK
Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 12/9/25