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
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has added the new limitations of a lower leg and an upper leg portion. However, there is no support for them in the specifications. The claims are rejected as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitations of lower leg portion and upper leg portion. However, the specification fails to disclose a lower leg portion and an upper leg portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawson (9,700,140).
Regarding claim 1, Lawson discloses a powered chair, comprising: a chair frame ; a backrest assembly 14; a seat assembly 12; a footrest assembly 16; a linkage system 100; and a linear actuator 300 operatively connected to said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly for actuating said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly between various positions, including a seated/upright position, an extended position, and a reclined position (see figures 1-3); wherein said seat assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed seat plates 400 wherein each one of said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates has a substantially V or L-shaped configuration wherein a rearward leg of said V or L-shaped seat plate comprises a lower leq portion, an upper leg portion of a size substantially equal to said lower leq portion, and a central, substantially horizontally extending portion interconnecting said lower leg portion and said upper leg portion such that said rearward leg of each one of said V or L-shaped seat plate has a distorted or elongated N or Z-shaped configuration which along with said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates, can accommodate an enlarged chair seat for, in turn, accommodating large or tall chair users (see figure A below).
Regarding claim 8, Lawson discloses a powered chair, comprising: a chair frame ; a backrest assembly 14; a seat assembly 12; a footrest assembly 16; a linkage system 100; and a linear actuator 1818 operatively connected to said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly for actuating said backrest assembly, said seat assembly, and said footrest assembly between various positions, including a seated/upright position, an zero-gravity position, and a reclined position (see figures 1-3); wherein said seat assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed seat plates 400 wherein each one of said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates has a substantially V or L-shaped configuration wherein a rearward leg of said V or L-shaped seat plate comprises a lower leg portion, an upper leg portion of a size substantially equal to said lower leg portion, and a central, substantially horizontally extending portion interconnecting said lower leg portion and said upper leg portion such that said rearward leg of each one of said V or L-shaped seat plate has a distorted or elongated N or Z-shaped configuration which along with said pair of oppositely disposed seat plates, can accommodate an enlarged chair seat for, in turn, accommodating large or tall chair users (see figure A below).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lawson discloses said backrest assembly comprises a pair of oppositely disposed backrest mounting brackets 510 for mounting a backrest thereon and which can be moved between upright positions and reclined positions.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lawson disclose said seat assembly is movable between a lowered, non-reclined position and an elevated, reclined position such that said seat assembly can attain a zero-gravity disposition (figures 8D, 9).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Lawson discloses said seat assembly is disposed at said elevated, reclined, zero-gravity disposition, said footrest assembly will be disposed at an elevational level which is higher than that of said backrest assembly, thereby permitting said chair to achieve said zero-gravity disposition (figures 8D, 9).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Lawson discloses said seat assembly is disposed at said elevated, reclined, zero-gravity position, a front end portion of said seat assembly will be disposed at a higher elevation than a rear end portion of said seat assembly (figures 8D, 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Griggs, Jr. (9,277,823).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Griggs, Jr. discloses said linear actuator comprises a motor 113, a lead screw housing 109, and a slide member 105 slidably mounted upon and operatively engaged with a lead screw 107 disposed within said lead screw housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Griggs, Jr. and use the linear actuator in the invention of the Lawson because it is compact, efficient and easy to use.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lawson as modified discloses said chair frame comprises forward 610 and rearward 620 cross-bar members; said motor of said linear actuator is fixedly mounted upon said forward cross-bar member; and said lead screw housing of said linear actuator is fixedly mounted upon said rearward cross-bar member.
[AltContent: textbox (Lower leg portion)][AltContent: textbox (Upper leg portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
510
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights