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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. The expression “the force” has no definite antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber et al (20150115684). The reference to Weber et al teaches structure as claimed including a footrest (32) for a seat, wherein the footrest comprises one or more foot supports for supporting one or more feet, and (ii) one or more mounts (figs 5, 6) to which the one or more foot supports are connected, wherein the one or more foot supports are slidable and pivotable relative to the one or more mounts, the one or more foot supports are slidable and pivotable relative to the one or more mounts by one or more feet positioned on the one or more foot supports, the one or more foot supports are connected to the one or more mounts by one or more connectors (58), the one or more connectors are configured for pivotable engagement with one or more of the foot supports(figs 3, 4) and slidable engagement with one or more of the mounts, the one or more connectors comprise one or more foot support mating parts and one or more mount mating parts, wherein the one or more foot support mating parts are for pivotably mounting the connector to the foot support (figs 3, 4) and the one or more mount mating parts are for slidably mounting the connector to the mount (fig 5, 6), the one or more foot supports are slidable forwards by a person placing one or both of their feet on the one or more foot supports, pivoting the one or more foot supports upwards and pushing the one or more foot supports forward with one or both of their feet, and/or (ii) the one or more foot supports are slidable rearwards by a person placing one or both of their feet on the one or more foot supports, pivoting the one or more foot supports downwards and pulling the one or more foot supports rearward with one or both of their feet (it is noted here that when the structure of adjustability is engaged movement of the supports and mount provide for the limitations.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20150115684). The reference to Weber et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a seat. To use such structure in different vehicle and in a plurality of seats including a plurality of rows, such as a transportation vehicle would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20150115684) in view of Owler (2591598). The reference to Weber et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including pivot mounting and connectors to provide adjustability the only difference being that the movement of such does not include a biasing. However, the reference to Owler (at least figs 3, 5) teaches the use of biasing structure(at 34, 22) to provide an assist to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Weber et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a biasing structure to provide an assist, as taught by Owler since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The particular angle of adjustment is a matter of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. It is noted that the limit and engagement of the pivot and sliding structure at the limits provide stops.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20150115684) in view of Moore (8246118). The reference to Weber et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including mounting and connectors to provide adjustability the only difference being that the connectors are not adjustable or provide a quick connect. However, the reference to Moore (at least fig 2) teaches adjustable connector (108, 128, 164) to provide a manual control of ease of movement to be old. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Weber et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a manual adjustment including providing adjustable friction and a quick release, as taught by Moore since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20150115684) in view of Liverson (1218876). The reference to Weber et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including mounts to provide adjustability the only difference being that there are not damping structures to provide protection and antivibration structure. However, the reference to Liverson(at 5, 6) teaches the use of a damping means(in the form of a covering and damping (rubber) to provide protection and inherently a damping structure to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Weber et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a damping structure, as taught by Liverson since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including adjustable leg/feet rests attached to seats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637