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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “one of the first and second posts is oriented with its longitudinal axis horizontal and is prevented from moving and rotating; and a remainder of the reconfigurable rest is cantilevered, horizontally.” It is unclear how the longitudinal axis of the first or second post may be considered to extend with a longitudinal axis in the horizontal direction based on the drawings. Further, if one or both of the posts extends horizontally, it is unclear how the remainder of the rest/linkages may be considered to cantilever further in the horizontal from the horizontally extending posts. For purposes of examination, Examiner will read the limitation to state that “one of the first and second posts is oriented with its longitudinal axis vertical” based on the drawings and discussion above.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gualtierotti (US 5145234).
As concerns claim 1, Gualtierotti discloses a reconfigurable rest for an article of furniture such as a sofa, the reconfigurable rest comprising: an elongate first post (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) for connection to a body of the article of furniture (Gualtierotti, column 3, lines 14-18), a length of the first post (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) defining a longitudinal first axis; an elongate second post (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) for connection to the body of the article of furniture (Gualtierotti, column 3, lines 14-18), the second post (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) being spaced apart from the first post (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) along a second axis transverse to the first axis; at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) extending between the first and second posts (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) to interconnect the first and second posts (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a), a curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) being adjustable to adjust a curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the reconfigurable rest relative to the second axis; and upholstery (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 11) covering at least a majority of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5).
As concerns claim 2, Gualtierotti discloses wherein the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) is configured to require application of a force of at least a predetermined magnitude to adjust the curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5).
As concerns claim 18, Gualtierotti discloses wherein the upholstery (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 11) covers substantially the whole of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5).
As concerns claim 19, Gualtierotti discloses wherein the upholstery (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 11) covers at least a majority of portions of the first and second posts (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 8a) that extend from the body of the article of furniture (Gualtierotti, column 3, lines 14-18), in use.
As concerns claim 20, Gualtierotti discloses an article of furniture such as a sofa, comprising: a body; and the reconfigurable rest of claim 1, the reconfigurable rest being connected to the body (Gualtierotti, column 1, lines 67-68 through column 2, lines 1-2).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtierotti (US 5145234).
As concerns claim 3, Gualtierotti does not expressly teach the predetermined magnitude is greater than that generated by a person having a mass of 100kg sitting on a seating portion of the article of furniture and leaning against the reconfigurable rest at an angle of 30 degrees from vertical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to try a predetermined magnitude is greater than that generated by a person having a mass of 100kg sitting on a seating portion of the furniture and the rest bending an angle of 30 degrees from vertical in order to provide the desired amount of comfort to a user.
As concerns claim 4, Gualtierotti does not expressly teach the force of at least a predetermined magnitude is a bending moment of at least 10Nm or at least 15Nm or at least 20Nm or at least 25Nm or at least 30Nm or at least 35Nm or at least 40Nm or at least 45Nm or at least 50Nm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to try the force of the predetermined magnitude is a bending moment of 10Nm to 50Nm in order to provide the desired amount of resistance to a user.
As concerns claim 5, as best understood, Gualtierotti teaches one of the first and second posts is oriented with its longitudinal axis vertical and is prevented from moving and rotating; and a remainder of the reconfigurable rest is cantilevered, horizontally, from said one of the first and second posts (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: as shown).
However, Gualtierotti does not expressly teach the force of at least a predetermined magnitude is a bending moment greater than that generated by the self-weight of the reconfigurable rest in this position.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to try this predetermined magnitude for a bending moment greater than that generated by the self-weight of a rest in order to provide the desired amount of resistance to a user.
Claims 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gualtierotti (US 5145234) in view of Mackert (US 8789880).
As concerns claim 6, Gualtierotti teaches at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5). However, Gualtierotti does not teach the articulated connector is a linkage.
Mackert teaches the articulated connector is a linkage (Mackert, fig. 1: 1) comprising at least a first plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the articulated connector as taught by Gualtierotti with links as taught by Mackert in order to have better flexibility in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 7, Gualtierotti does not teach an interference fit exists between the links. However, Mackert does teach an interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22) exists between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to include an interference fit between the links in Gualtierotti as taught by Mackert in order to have better flexibility in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 8, Gualtierotti teaches at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) is configured to require application of the force of at least a predetermined magnitude to adjust the curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5).
However, Gualtierotti does not teach at least one articulated connector is a linkage comprising of connected links connected with an interference fit.
Mackert teaches a linkage (Mackert, fig. 1: 1) comprising at least a first plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) and an interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22) exists between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the articulated connector as taught by Gualtierotti as a linkage with links connected by an interference fit as taught by Mackert in order to have flexibility in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 9, Gualtierotti teaches the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) has a curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7).
However, Gualtierotti does not teach the links comprises a cog which assists control of the curvature of the at least one articulated connector.
Mackert teaches each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) comprises a cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5), the cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5) of each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) being engaged with the cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5) of the or each longitudinally adjoining said link (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the curved articulated connector as taught by Gualtierotti to consist of links with cogs as taught by Mackert in order to have a more flexible rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 10, Gualtierotti teaches the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5). However, Gualtierotti does not teach that the at least one articulated connector is a linkage comprising of links with an interference fit between the links and the links being engaged with a cog.
Mackert does teach the articulated connector is a linkage (Mackert, fig. 1: 1) comprising at least a first plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); an interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22) exists between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) comprises a cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5), the cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5) of each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) being engaged with the cog (Mackert, fig. 1: 5); and a magnitude of interference provided by the interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22) is provided or contributed to by one or more of: engagement of the cogs (Mackert, fig. 1: 5); friction between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); material properties of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); and bearing force between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the articulated connector as taught by Gualtierotti as a linkage made of links comprised of a cog connected with an interference fit as taught by Mackert in order to have a flexible rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 11, Gualtierotti teaches the curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5).
However, Gualtierotti does not teach the links comprises an abutment surface.
Mackert teaches each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) comprises an abutment surface (Mackert, see annotated fig 1. below), the abutment surface (Mackert, see annotated fig 1. below) of each of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) being configured to engage with the abutment surface (Mackert, see annotated fig 1. below) of the or each adjoining said at least one link (Mackert, fig. 1: 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the articulated connector as taught by Gualtierotti to include the links as taught by Mackert in order to have a curvature in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 12, Gualtierotti teaches the range of adjustment of the curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) bay be from to zero to a curvature (Gualtierotti, column 4, lines 6-7) of one sign or the other.
As concerns claim 13, Gualtierotti does not teach the connected links.
However, Mackert does teach the at least a first plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) further comprises at least a second plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3), the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) of the second plurality being hingedly connected to the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) of the first plurality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make Gualterotti with the links as taught by Mackert in order to have a curvature in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 14, Gualtierotti does not teach the connected links. However, Mackert teaches the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) of the second plurality are longitudinally misaligned with those of the first plurality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make Gualterotti with the links as taught by Mackert in order to have a curvature in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 15, Gualtierotti does not teach the connected links. However, Mackert teaches the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) of the second plurality are longitudinally misaligned with those of the first plurality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make Gualterotti with the links as taught by Mackert in order to have a curvature in the rest for a piece of furniture.
As concerns claim 16, Gualtierotti teaches the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5). However, Gualtierotti does not teach the articulated connector is a linkage comprising of links with an interference fit.
However, Mackert does teach the articulated connector is a linkage (Mackert, fig. 1: 1) comprising at least a first plurality of hingedly connected links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); an interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22) exists between the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3); and the frictional interference of the links (Mackert, fig. 1: 3) of the second plurality with those of the first plurality contribute to a magnitude of interference provided by the interference fit (Mackert, column 2, lines 17-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the invention, to make the articulated connector taught by Gualtierotti with the links of Mackert in order for the rest of a piece of furniture to include a curvature.
As concerns claim 17, Gualtierotti teaches the at least one articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) comprises at least a first said articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) and a second said articulated connector (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5), the first and second articulated connectors (Gualtierotti, fig. 1: 5) being substantially parallel with one another.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA K THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
JESSICA K THOMPSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636