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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (11,634,048) in view of Brown (10,736,423).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al. disclose a chair mechanism for an item of furniture for sitting and reclining having a seat and a backrest, wherein the backrest has a lower backrest frame 34 and an upper backrest frame 36, and the lower backrest frame 34 is coupled to the seat 46 so as to be capable of pivoting about a first pivot axis (via shaft 78) and the lower backrest frame is coupled to the upper backrest frame so as to be capable of pivoting about a second pivot axis (via shaft 94), and wherein a first actuator 76 is provided for adjusting the angle between the seat and the lower backrest frame and a second actuator 92 is provided for adjusting the angle between the lower backrest frame and the upper backrest frame,
However, Tanaka et al. fail to disclose a lumbar support is provided which is attached to the upper or lower backrest frame and is adjustably mounted relative to the lower and/or upper backrest frame.
Instead, Brown discloses a lumbar support 80 is provided which is attached to the upper or lower backrest frame 16 and is adjustably mounted relative to the lower and/or upper backrest frame.
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka et al. fail to disclose the first actuator (7) is designed for a pivot range about the first pivot axis of 25°+/−5°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka et al. fail to disclose the second actuator (8) is designed for a pivot range about the second pivot axis of 35°+/−5°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka et al. disclose the first actuator (7) is designed to adjust the angle between the seat (1) and the lower backrest frame (2a)—measured at a front side of the chair mechanism—between a minimum angle of 100° and a maximum angle of 125°, in each case+/−10°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka et al. fail to disclose the second actuator (8) is designed to adjust the angle between the lower backrest frame (2a) and the upper backrest frame (2b)—measured at a front side of the chair mechanism—between a minimum angle of 155° and a maximum angle of 200°, in each case+/−10°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka et al. disclose a footrest 60/62 is also provided, which is mounted on the seat so as to be retractable and extendable.
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses the lumbar support 80 is attached to the upper backrest frame 16 and can be pivoted with the upper backrest frame about the second pivot axis (at 18).
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses a further actuator 38’ is provided for the relative adjustment of the lumbar support 80 in relation to the upper and/or lower backrest frames.
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 Brown and use an actuator to adjust the lumbar support in the invention of Tanaka et al. because it provides accurate change with low effort.
Regarding claim 9, Brown discloses the lumbar support 80 has a lumbar support plate 90 which extends transversely to a longitudinal center axis of the chair mechanism in the region of the lower backrest frame.
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses the lumbar support 80 is arranged such that the distance of the lumbar support plate 90 relative to the lower backrest frame 16 changes upon actuation of the second actuator 38’.
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses the lumbar support 80 is arranged such that an adjustment of the angle between the upper backrest frame and the lower backrest frame causes a change in the distance of the lumbar support 80 transversely to a plane spanned by the first and second pivot axes.
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
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 Brown and use an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses the lumbar support has a lumbar support plate 90 and at least one support element 84 holding the lumbar support plate, wherein the support element 84 is fastened to the upper backrest frame 82 in such a way that a part of the support element penetrates a plane spanned by the first and second pivot axes in a region between the first and second pivot axes.
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 Brown and use fastener element to fasten an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 13, Brown discloses the lumbar support has a lumbar support plate 90 and the lumbar support 90 can be fastened 82 to the upper backrest frame 16 in at least two positions in which the lumbar support plate has different distances from the second pivot axis (figure 17).
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 Brown and use fastener element to fasten an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses the lumbar support 80 has a lumbar support plate 90 and the lumbar support can be fastened 82 to the upper backrest frame (2b) in at least two positions in which the lumbar support plate 90 has different distances from a plane spanned by the first and second pivot axes.
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 Brown and use fastener element to fasten an adjustable lumbar support plate in the invention of Tanaka et al. in order to prevent fatigue and injuries with low cost.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka et al. as modified with Brown fail to disclose the lumbar support can be fastened to the upper backrest frame (2b) so as to be adjustable in two directions, wherein the two directions enclose an angle of 90°+/−20°.
However, Brown has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka et al. disclose a headrest 60 is also provided which is coupled to the upper backrest frame 36 so as to be capable of pivoting about a third pivot axis (at 120) and a third actuator 118 is provided for adjusting the angle between the headrest and the upper backrest frame.
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka et al. fail to disclose the third actuator (12) is designed for a pivot range about the third pivot axis (11) of 50°+/−5°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka et fail to disclose the third actuator (12) is designed to adjust the angle between the headrest (3) and the upper backrest frame (2b)—measured at a front side of the chair mechanism—between a minimum angle of 150° and a maximum angle of 200°, in each case+/−10°.
However, Tanaka et al. has no limitations that prevents from limiting the angle of the pivot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use any pivot angle to reduce fatigue and injuries, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka et al. disclose a control unit 140 (col. 11, 12) is provided for controlling the first and/or second and/or third actuator wherein the control unit has at least two different program sequences in which one or more of the three actuators are operated at an adjustable speed such that the angle adjustable by the corresponding actuator repeatedly changes continuously between a specified minimum angle and a specified maximum angle.
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka et al. disclose a control unit 140 is provided for controlling the second actuator, which is designed such that the angle between the lower and the upper backrest frame about the second pivot axis can be continuously changed in a plurality of cycles between a minimum angle and a maximum angle at a specified speed.
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
Prosecution Insights