Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action for serial number 18/763,937 filed 7/03/24. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/03/ is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The drawings filed 7/03/24 are approved.
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 3, 4, 7-9 and 13-10 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.
In claims 3, 13 and 18 it is not clear which foot plate receiver “the foot receiver” references as a plurality have been defined, at least one in each of the first and second support members. Further, as best understood there is not one “the” foot plate receiver being a channel cut into “each” of the support members. The examiner suggests amending to:
“ [[the]] each foot plate receiver being a channel cut into a support member[[s]]”.
In claims 7 and 15, the language “wherein each of the support members, the first and second support members, comprises” is unclear. The examiner suggests:
“wherein each of s”
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 19, the phrase "of the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "of the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Applicant is advised that should claims 7 and 8 be found allowable, claims 15 and 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The claims are identical. It appears applicant may have intended the dependency of claim 15 to be from claim 10 rather than claim 2?
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7-9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2019/0038028 to Pacific et al.
In Figure 2 Pacific provides, a seat comprising 200: a seat portion 201; a support structure (frame 202); and a plurality of connection members 205; wherein: the seat portion of the present invention is suspended from the support structure, via the plurality of connection members; each connection member being an elongated member possessing two distal ends, wherein one distal end is connected to the seat portion and the opposite distal end is connected to the support structure at 206; and the plurality of connection members enabling the seat portion to move multi-directionally (at least forward and backward as disclosed in [0031] however it is inherent from the figure that he seat would also be capable of some left-right movement as well).
With respect to claim 2, the support structure comprises: a first support member; and a second support member; wherein: the first support member and the second support member are mirrored structures (legs 207); and the first support member and the second support member are arranged on opposite lateral sides of the seat portion.
With respect to claim 5, paragraph [0031] there may be optional cross bracing.
With respect to claim 6, the seat portion comprises: a seat bottom 210; a seat back 212; a left seat side 209; and a right seat side 208; wherein: the left seat side and the right seat side are each connected perpendicular to the seat bottom, extending parallel to one another away from the seat bottom; and the seat back is connected to the seat bottom, the left seat side, and the right seat side, creating a partially enclosed basket structure.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, the bottom edge of the side frames 207 is wider than the top edge. Also, paragraph [0031] recites in alternative embodiments, the frame 202 may have a hoop base or be constructed of wood or other materials having standard vertical side members, legs, feet and optional horizontal cross bracing. See for example the support frame of U.S. Patent 6,343,838 to Bagshaw.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, paragpgh [0031] recites the legs 207 have “feet” for stability.
With respect to claim 9, paragraph [0030] recites seat apparatus 201 may be suspended from portable suspension frame 202 via a chain, cable, rope, line or such suspension means 205. In the example provided, one or more chains or cables 205 may be implemented at each side of the bench assembly as shown to suspend the bench from the suspension frame 202.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “sensory seat” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claims 10-12 allowed.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13, 14 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teaches or adequately suggest a suspended seat that moves multi-directionally with a foot plate received in channels cut into the support members or which is slidably engaged with the support structure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly note:
U.S. 2018/0289161 to Kim which provides a suspended swing seat with footrest 520. The foot rest is not a plate of slidably engaged with the support members 50.
Forwardly extending cross brace 14 is U.S. Patent 7,258,618 to Haut.
US D 305,584 to Spillman et al. shows a child’s swing with a seat suspended from a support frame having mirror image sides and across brae. The bottom of the side frames is wider than the top and a cross brace is shown. Spillman appears to meet at least claim 1 but has not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections
U.S. Patent 4,456,244 to Andrews provides a suspended swing seat with foot plate 20. The foot plate is not slidably engaged with the support members.
U.S. Patent 5,857,944 to teaches providing supports of a suspended seat with base members 42 which extend outwardly and forwardly of a front edge (see Fig.5).
The glider of U.S. 2004/0135408 to Noll appears to meet at least claim 1 but has not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections.
U.S. Patent 2,547,891 to Smith.
U.S. 2023/0294005 to Kufel qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and appears to meet at least claim 1 but has not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636