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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sleeving member(claim 2), hook and loop fasteners(claim 3), a storage cavity by making a circle (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5 and 6-8 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. It is unclear how a supporting frame is configured to form and storage cavity by making a circle (claim 4). The expressions “the connecting frame comprising a square frame, configured to make a circle” (claim 6) is unclear in that it cannot be determined how a square frame forms a circle. Clarification and correction are required. Claims 5, 7, 8 are indefinite ion that they depend from an indefinite base claim.
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) 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussia, Jr et al (5795028) in view of Brandtner et al (12433410). The reference to Dussia, Jr et al teaches structure substantially as claimed including a swivel sofa chair convenient to transport, comprising: two armrest supporting portions (24), oppositely spaced on two sides respectively and used for supporting hands of a user; a backrest portion (26), spliced with rear ends of the two armrest supporting portions and used for supporting a back of the user, wherein two side ends of the backrest portion are detachably connected with the rear ends of the two armrest supporting portions respectively (see at least fig 2); a front baffle portion (22), spliced with front ends of the two armrest supporting portions and used for encircling along with the two armrest supporting portions and the backrest portion to form an accommodating cavity with openings in a top and a bottom (see all figs), wherein two side ends of the front baffle portion (22) are detachably connected with the front ends of the two armrest supporting portions respectively; a connecting frame (at least fig 5 at 190), arranged in the accommodating cavity and used for connecting the two armrest supporting portions, wherein two ends of the connecting frame are detachably connected with the two armrest supporting portions respectively; a base (202, 204), arranged at a bottom of the connecting frame, extending out of the opening in the bottom of the accommodating cavity, and used for supporting the connecting frame, wherein the base is configured to rotate to be used for facilitating rotation of the sofa chair, supporting board (202), round chassis (204) the only difference being that there is not specifically mentioned a cushion to provide for comfort and support and a panel jacket to provide for aesthetics and protection. However, the reference to Brandtner et al teaches the use of providing cushion (73) and jacket structure (92, 93, 94) 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 Dussia jr et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a cushion and jacket covering, as taught by Brandtner et al 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. With regard to claims 3, 4, note that the use of wood boards in framing, hook and loop fasteners and lint jackets are conventional structures used in providing framing, connections, and protective coverings. To use such conventional elements in the same well known intended purpose would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. Note Brandtner et al teaches reinforcing ribs and storage cavities to provide strength and storage areas to be known in the art (fig 3) and note that the rotation structure in fig 5 of Dussia et al show conventional rotation bases that conventionally include rotary shafts and bearing members to provide rotational movement. Again, to use such conventional elements in the same well known intended purpose would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including knockdown rotational seating structure.
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