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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner. See attached IDS form.
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 2-10 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it is unclear what elements are considered part of the “frame”. Claim 2 recites “said frame comprising”, which includes a “C-shaped section”. The “C-shaped section” is said to have “in turn” “two of said legs”. It is unclear how the legs are considered part of the C-shaped portion. The claim then recites that the “appendage” extends proximate to a “free end” of said wings. This is unclear as the wings do not have “free ends”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plane of arrangement" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is indefinite as in lines 3-4 it recites that the shell is associated with the frame and also “at each of said substantially C-shaped sections”. While the shell does appear to be “associated” with the frame, it is not clear what the clause “at each of said substantially C-shaped sections” means in relation with the rest of the claim.
Claim 4 is unclear as it recites in the next to last line that the appendage is “at/proximate” to corners. It is not clear if the appendage needs to be “at” the corner, “proximate” the corner, or either.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it as it is unclear what is meant by “that are such as to produce”.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2015/0015051).
Huang discloses a chair comprising: a frame (1; see Figure 1) for supporting a seat (2) and a backrest (3), said frame being provided with legs (11) for resting on the ground, said seat, said backrest, wherein at least said backrest is fixed to said frame by virtue of interlocking means (including at least 121).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2015/0015051) in view of Meek, Jr et al. (US 2539919).
Huang is discussed above but does not show the frame as claimed.
Meek, Jr. teaches a chair comprising a frame having two portions which are mirror-symmetrical with respect to a sagittal plane of said chair (see Figures 1-3), each one of said portions of said frame comprising: - a substantially C-shaped section (middle portion as seen in Fig. 1), which is substantially parallel to said seat and has in turn: - a core (at 12B), from which two wings extend, - two of said legs (11), each one of said legs extending from a respective free end of a corresponding one of said wings, said legs extending in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a plane of arrangement of said substantially C-shaped section, below said seat, - an appendage (13S), which extends proximate to a free end of a corresponding one of said wings, proximate to/facing said backrest, said appendage extending in a direction at right angles to the plane of arrangement of said substantially C-shaped section and in a direction that is opposite to a direction of said legs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with the teachings of Meek, Jr. et al. in order to provide a sturdier frame for the chair.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2015/0015051) in view of Meek, Jr et al. (US 2539919) and in further view of WO 2022/240616 (Machin et al; cited on IDS).
The combination of Huang and Meek, Jr. is discussed above but does not show the seat comprising two shells.
Machin et al. teaches a seat comprising first and second shells (see Fig. 9) wherein the upper shell has zones to provide interlocking seats for the frame; stiffening ribs and through holes (see Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Huang and Meek, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Machin in order to provide a strengthened and easy to assemble seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571(272)-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636