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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the §112(b) rejection, the Applicants conclude that the amendment corrects the indefiniteness, but they don’t explain why/how. Below is an annotated copy of claim 1. The arrows show the first indentation level – this is where limitations under the preamble’s “comprising” transitional phrase are introduced. There are three limitations that are particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ”features” are not given the same type of introduction. They are first mentioned in the phrase “suitable to output power to features”. This is a description of how the control box output is “suitable”. It is not a proper introduction and structural limitation of the features themselves.
The original language of claim 1 had “the features comprising” in the same indentation level as the other three limitations. This was the proper location, but the wording was wrong. “the features comprising” is a descriptive phrase for what the features are – essentially further narrowing how the control box power output is “suitable”. This language did not explicitly introduce the features as a distinct claimed limitation.
The amended language, “wherein the features comprise” is the same as the original – it is descriptive of the features (which are only themselves a description of the suitableness of the control box power output).
The Applicants should, at the first indentation level, recite “the features, wherein the features comprise:”. This phrase has two parts: the first properly introduces the limitation of the features as one of the claimed limitations; the second then presents a wherein clause to further narrow the features.
Regarding the art rejection, the Applicants present no explanation of which limitations are the “earnest effort to advance prosecution” or why those limitations overcome the prior art. “If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case.” MPEP §2145. A conclusory statement that the references are overcome, without any explanation supporting it, does not satisfy this burden.
Raghavan’s office furniture includes a desk, couch and/or chair, and these are clearly “mobile”. A person (or group of people) can obviously move the furniture around the office. Raghavan does not disclose its furniture is so heavy as to defy any attempt to move it. Jacobs discloses a plurality of features and they can obviously be categorized into “groups”. The combination teaches that the Jacobs features receive power output from the Raghavan control box unit.
The four elements of claim 1 (i.e. treating the features as a distinctly claimed element, even though the claim does not present them as such) are taught by the combination of Raghavan and Jacobs. The Applicants do not argue otherwise by addressing any limitation(s) they contend is not taught by the prior art.
The Applicants do not argue against the art rejections of any of the dependent claims. The §112(b) and art rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the features or not.
Claim 1 recites that the control box “comprises a power output suitable to output power to features on the chair frame”. The suitable-ness of the control box ends at its output terminals – the describing of types of features (“wherein the features comprise”) would only describe the power, voltage and/or current that should be output by the control box unit. The features themselves are not distinctly claimed.
Further supporting this interpretation is the fact that the claim does not actually connect the feature(s) to the control box unit. In line 5, the Applicants use “communicative” to indicate how they intend to claim the connection of components (the control box unit to the power supply). No such language appears in the features description. “suitable to output power to features” is a description of power levels and does not require a “communicative” connection.
The way the features are introduced and defined suggests they are only descriptive (not claimed). The language of some dependent, however, claims suggests that the Applicants intend to claim the features. Different readers would draw different conclusions regarding the scope of the claim. This makes the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, the features will be interpreted as included in the system. It would be helpful if the Applicants would confirm that this is the intention. The Applicants only flatly state that the indefiniteness is addressed – they do not clearly state in which direction (claim the features, not claim the features).
To overcome the rejection, the Applicants may consider the following:
A system for providing a smart desk chair …
a control box unit associated with the chair frame and which receives power from and is communicative with the power supply, and comprises a power output suitable to output power to a plurality of features on the chair frame
the plurality of features, wherein the plurality of features comprise:
a plurality of strain gauges …
In this version of claim 1, there is a first-level indentation to properly introduce “a plurality of features” – but as there is already antecedent basis for the features, the “a” is replaced with “the”. Then, after the proper introduction, the claim can shift to a “comprises” listing (second indentation level) of the types of features. This change would still overcome the rejection if the Applicants would rather use “features” instead of “plurality of features”.
The Applicants’ language is indefinite because it goes straight to the descriptive list of what the features comprise – it does not have the introduction to explicitly recite the features as one of the (now) four components of the system.
Or, if the Applicants intend to recite the features as descriptive, clarification is requested so that the public can be put on notice that the features are not included within the scope of the claim (and so the art rejection can be updated).
Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
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 1-3, 5, 9-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (US 2015/0256031) in view of Jacobs (US 2017/0105540). Alternatively, the claims are unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Raghavan. The claimed limitations (including the “features” and application) appear to have priority to March 20, 2017 (application 15/464,176; see figure 3 and paragraphs 50-53).
With respect to claim 1, Raghavan discloses a system for providing a smart desk chair (fig 1-2; par 19-29), comprising:
a power supply (25) at least partially integrated with a chair frame (par 23 – the PWoL is furniture to allow the user to rest – this indicates something to sit on, like a chair; par 24 discloses a couch, which supports the interpretation of par 23; par 51 explicitly discloses the PWoL can be a chair), wherein the chair frame is mobile (a desk, couch and/or chair are obviously mobile, as people can move furniture around a room as they desire); and
a control box unit (at least items 23 and 19) associated with the chair frame and which receives power from and is communicative with the power supply, and comprises a power output suitable to output power to features on the chair frame (via outputs 27, 28).
Raghavan discloses a system that provides power to DC loads within a piece of furniture (including a chair). The claim only broadly recites to what the control box is “suitable” to do without actually defining the structure to make it possible. That a power output is “suitable” to provide power to a location is not the same as actually claiming this electrical connection. The Applicants have not addressed this issue by providing clarifying comments or claim amendments.
Raghavan discloses controllable DC outputs (see par 34) and successfully operating the attached loads. Thus, the reference discloses providing “suitable” output power and that those loads are “receiving power from the power output of the control box unit”.
Raghavan does not expressly disclose the loads are the recited “features”. Raghavan discloses a wireless connection to a remote network, but does not expressly disclose an application to interact with and control the features (the Raghavan network is to remotely control the power distribution in the chai). Jacobs discloses a system for providing a smart desk chair (fig 1-2; par 9, 90-95, 99, 103-104, 107, 111-115; the chair is item 210 at location 160), comprising:
a control box (par 13-16) associated with the chair frame and comprises a power output suitable to output power to features on the chair frame, wherein the features comprise:
a plurality of strain gauges (par 83, 94, 135) affixed to the smart desk chair in multiple groups (par 94, last sentence – one chair has a plurality of sensors) and receiving power from the power supply (obvious to cause the gauge to operate – also obvious within the combination, where Raghavan provides power outputs to chair loads); and
a plurality of comfort and well-being outputs (par 100, 117, 121-122, 130) affixed to portions of the smart desk chair and receiving power from the power supply; and
an application (par 93-95, 103-104, 117) wirelessly associated with the plurality of strain gauges and the plurality of comfort and well-being outputs capable of providing user and automated control of, and information related to, use of the smart desk chair and actuation of the comfort and well-being outputs by communicating wirelessly with the plurality of strain gauges and the plurality of comfort and well-being outputs.
Jacobs discloses a powered chair with features and a remote control smartphone application. Raghavan and Jacobs are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely powered smart chairs. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references’ chair features. The motivation for doing so would have been to add known loads to the Raghavan chair or to add a known power supply to the Jacobs chair. Or, alternatively, the motivation for doing so would have been to apply the benefits of Jacobs’ features to the Raghavan office environment.
With respect to claim 2, Raghavan discloses the smart desk chair is a direct current device (outputs 28 are DC and, therefore, the chair is a “DC device”).
With respect to claim 3, Raghavan discloses the control box unit is wired to the power supply (see wired connection between items 25 and 23 in figure 2).
With respect to claim 5, Jacobs discloses the application is on a mobile device (par 87, 93-95; it is on a smartphone).
With respect to claim 9, Raghavan discloses the control box unit further comprises a controller suitable to assess power needs of the smart desk chair and the features (par 34).
With respect to claim 10, Raghavan discloses controller further controls the power to output either DC or AC power dependent upon the power needs (par 22, DC power is provided). The “or” in the claim is interpreted as being directed to the ability to output one type of power. The language of claim 10 does not indicate the structure necessary to selectively provide from two types of power. Similar language was rejected over Raghavan in the parent application (claim 25) – the Applicants have not corrected the ambiguity in the claim. The Applicants do not address or rebut this interpretation in the remarks; thus, it is presumed to be correct.
With respect to claim 11, Raghavan (29; par 26) and Jacobs (175; par 89-94) both disclose the control box unit further comprises a network connectivity module.
With respect to claim 12, Raghavan (par 25 “the rest of system 1”) and Jacobs (the smartphone cited in the art rejection of claim 5) both disclose the network connectivity module comprises a connection to an external mobile device.
With respect to claim 13, both references disclose bidirectional communication. The combination teaches the mobile device connection includes a transmit and receive to and from the application.
With respect to claims 16 and 18, Jacobs discloses the comfort output comprises heating or cooling (par 9, 100, 117, 121-122, 130).
With respect to claim 17, Jacobs discloses the heating/cooling is only at specified locations on the smart desk chair (par 117 – a heating “pack” indicates a smaller area than the entire seat/chair, and the heating/cooling can be “selectively energized”, meaning that only specified locations are activated).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Jacobs and Makansi (US 2013/0008181) or over Jacobs in view of Raghavan and Makansi.
Raghavan does not expressly disclose a wireless connection between the control box and power supply. Makansi discloses that power for a chair can be provided wired or wirelessly (par 41). In the combination, the Makansi power supply adapter 125 would be located on the Raghavan/Jacobs chair (not a separate furniture item). Therefore, the combination teaches wireless power transfer within the chair itself (not just to the chair).
The combination and Makansi are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely powered chairs. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the wired connection taught by Raghavan with a wireless one, as taught by Makansi. The motivation for doing so would have been to add freedom of movement. Makansi does not disclose any hardships in replacing a wired power supply with a wireless one. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered such a change for any wired power location within the combination.
Claims 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Jacobs and Boomgarden (US 8,979,194) or over Jacobs in view of Raghavan and Boomgarden.
Raghavan discloses the chair includes energy storage module, but does not expressly disclose ambient energy collectors to charge it. Boomgarden discloses an electrified chair comprising ambient energy collectors (col. 7, lines 8-42) to further charge the power supply that comprise a thermal energy collector (col. 8, lines 15-29) or a kinetic energy collector (col. 7, lines 44-59). Boomgarden claim 20 also discloses uses both ambient collectors together.
Raghavan and Boomgarden are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electrified chairs. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Raghavan’s chair to include energy harvesters, as taught by Boomgarden. The motivation for doing so would have been to recharge the battery with “free” energy from its user.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Jacobs and Schwarz (US 2018/0125416) or over Jacobs in view of Raghavan and Schwarz.
Jacobs discloses the chair includes a strain gauge, but does not expressly disclose the direction(s) of sensing. Schwarz discloses a chair frame (par 5) with a strain gauge (par 116-118) that is either tri-axial or a particular directional sensing array (par 118).
Jacobs and Schwarz are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely chair-based strain gauges. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure Jacobs to have the sensing directionality taught by Schwarz. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately detect where/how the user is sitting in the chair. Jacobs only mentions a strain gauge by name. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to “fill in the blanks” of the Jacobs disclosure to understand how best to arrange the gauges.
Conclusion
There is no art rejection for claim 20. The claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 is corrected.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the system of claim 1, wherein at least one strain gauge is placed in or on the wheels. The prior art teaches a smart chair system with strain gauges and wheels, but the strain gauges are placed in the body of the chair (the seat, the back) to measure the person’s posture. The prior art does not teach or suggest placing the gauges in/on the wheels themselves.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836