DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on October 30, 2024 & July 19, 2024 (x2) were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: within the “Cross-Reference to Related Applications” section, applicant needs to account for prior application 17/667,771 being patented, i.e., amend the specification to include “now US Patent no. 12,075,910 and issued September 03, 2024” for instance. Additionally, in paragraph [0032], the specification includes a couple occurrences where the “concaved area” / “concave side” recite “150, 160”, but should recite “150, 155” instead. Furthermore, in paragraph [0050], the reference number “340” is used to identify an “adhesive layer”, but should be changed to “330”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7, 10-12, 15-16 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al., [US 9,611,691] in view of Ide [US 4,054,182]. Hunter teaches of a stow-away stool (10) positioned in a cabinet (12), wherein the cabinet comprises a base (14), comprising: first and second legs (left and right (22)), the first and second legs each comprising a lower edge that is concaved (such as along (23) as shown in fig. 1) and an upper edge having an apex (such as the upper apex portion along (30) as shown in fig. 1 – viewed as the top or highest part of the leg); two parallel steps (34, 44) perpendicular to and connecting the first and second legs; and a base (50) positioned between the first and second legs, wherein a first end (viewed as the end along the bottom of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is rotatably attached to the base and wherein a second end (viewed as the end along the top of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is selectively rotatable between a stowed position (fig. 4) within the cabinet and a deployed position (fig. 5) outside of the cabinet, wherein the first end of each of the first and second legs is configured to be held in place in the cabinet base by the base. Hunter teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stow-away stool as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the base as being weighted (i.e., a base having enough weight to eliminate the need to be positively fastened to the cabinet base via fasteners). As to this aspect, Ide is cited as an evidence reference for the known application of providing a counterweight (39) along a base (11) of a ladder (17) that pivots relative to the base in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hunter so as to incorporate a “weighted” base, i.e., utilize a counterweight, in view of Ide’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative mounting option for the stool base relative to the cabinet base that would allow for the stool to be readily mobile (move from one cabinet to another cabinet), while still anchoring the stool within the cabinet between stowed and deployed positions whereby the need of fasteners and tools would be eliminated in order to operate the stool within the cabinet and without having to mar the cabinet base for positive securement purposes. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, in the deployed position one (34) of the two steps is above an other (44) of the two steps (fig. 5) and wherein in the stowed position the other step (44) of the two steps is spaced above the cabinet base and the one step (34) of the two steps is positioned toward a rear of the cabinet base (figs. 3-4). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the stool further comprising a mounting bracket (54) fixing the first and second legs to the weighted base, wherein the mounting bracket comprises a first face (viewed as the vertical front face for instance) and a second face (viewed as the horizontal top face for instance) that are 90 degrees apart. Hunter teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stool as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the device with plural mounting brackets (Hunter uses one elongated bracket) for attaching the legs to the weighted base. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize two distinct mounting brackets, i.e., make the elongated mounting bracket separable {such as for ease of replacement in the event only a portion of the bracket is damaged}, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formally integral structure into various elements, where the elements perform the same function as the integral structure, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). As modified, the elongated bracket could be made into two smaller brackets and utilized along the lateral ends of (38) thereby reducing the cost of the assembly (a cost savings) since less material would be required to pivotally mount the stool to the weighted base. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the weighted base would not include any fasteners that insert into the cabinet base. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the weighted base comprises a weight in order to counterbalance the weight of the stool as it pivots; but does not disclose a weight range of between 4 and 6 lbs. As to this aspect, the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of weight for the weighted base so as to encompass several weight ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of an end user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 10, again, Hunter teaches of a stow-away stool (10) positioned in a cabinet (12), wherein the cabinet comprises a base (14), comprising: first and second legs (left and right (22)); a first step (44) perpendicular to and connecting the first and second legs, a second step (34) perpendicular to and connecting the first and second legs; and a base (50) positioned between the first and second legs, wherein a first end (viewed as the end along the bottom of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is rotatably attached to the base and wherein a second end (viewed as the end along the top of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is selectively rotatable between a stowed position within the cabinet and a deployed position outside of the cabinet, wherein the first end of each of the first and second legs is configured to be held in place in the cabinet base by the base. Hunter teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stow-away stool as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the base as being weighted (i.e., a base having enough weight to eliminate the need to be positively fastened to the cabinet base via fasteners). As to this aspect, Ide is cited as an evidence reference for the known application of providing a counterweight (39) along a base (11) of a ladder (17) that pivots relative to the base in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hunter so as to incorporate a “weighted” base, i.e., utilize a counterweight, in view of Ide’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative mounting option for the stool base relative to the cabinet base that would allow for the stool to be readily mobile (move from one cabinet to another cabinet), while still anchoring the stool within the cabinet between stowed and deployed positions whereby the need of fasteners and tools would be eliminated in order to operate the stool within the cabinet and without having to mar the cabinet base for positive securement purposes. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, in the deployed position the first step is below the second step (fig. 5) and wherein in the stowed position the first step is spaced above the cabinet base (fig. 4). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the stool further comprising a mounting bracket (54) fixing the first and second legs to the weighted base, wherein the mounting bracket comprises a first face (viewed as the vertical front face for instance) and a second face (viewed as the horizontal top face for instance) that are 90 degrees apart. Hunter teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stool as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the device with plural mounting brackets (Hunter uses one elongated bracket) for attaching the legs to the weighted base. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize two distinct mounting brackets, i.e., make the elongated mounting bracket separable {such as for ease of replacement in the event only a portion of the bracket is damaged}, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formally integral structure into various elements, where the elements perform the same function as the integral structure, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). As modified, the elongated bracket could be made into two smaller brackets and utilized along the lateral ends of (38) thereby reducing the cost of the assembly (a cost savings) since less material would be required to pivotally mount the stool to the weighted base. Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the weighted base would not include any fasteners that insert into the cabinet base. Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the weighted base comprises a weight in order to counterbalance the weight of the stool as it pivots; but does not disclose a weight range of between 4 and 6 lbs. As to this aspect, the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of weight for the weighted base so as to encompass several weight ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of an end user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the first step is positioned toward a rear of the cabinet base, providing a storage space in the cabinet base between the first and second legs (note fig. 4 and the space provided between the legs when in the stowed position). As to Claim 20, again, Hunter teaches of a stow-away stool (10) positioned in a cabinet (12), wherein the cabinet comprises a base (14), comprising: first and second legs (left and right (22)); a first step (44) perpendicular to and connecting the first and second legs; a second step (34) perpendicular to and connecting the first and second legs; and a base (50) positioned on the cabinet base between the first and second legs, wherein a first end (viewed as the end along the bottom of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is rotatably attached to the base and wherein a second end (viewed as the end along the top of the legs as oriented within fig. 3) of the first and second legs is selectively rotatable between a stowed position (fig. 4) within the cabinet and a deployed position (fig. 5) outside of the cabinet, wherein the first end of each of the first and second legs is configured to be held in place in the cabinet base by base. Hunter teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stow-away stool as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the base as being weighted (i.e., a base having enough weight to eliminate the need to be positively fastened to the cabinet base via fasteners). As to this aspect, Ide is cited as an evidence reference for the known application of providing a counterweight (39) along a base (11) of a ladder (17) that pivots relative to the base in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hunter so as to incorporate a “weighted” base, i.e., utilize a counterweight, in view of Ide’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative mounting option for the stool base relative to the cabinet base that would allow for the stool to be readily mobile (move from one cabinet to another cabinet), while still anchoring the stool within the cabinet between stowed and deployed positions whereby the need of fasteners and tools would be eliminated in order to operate the stool within the cabinet and without having to mar the cabinet base for positive securement purposes.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-14 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al., and Ide and further in view of Sullivan III [US 6,012,694]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed stool as outlined above, including the mention that the stool base may be mounted to the cabinet base via screws or similar fasteners [col. 4], and comprises a weighted portion (portion of the counterweight) and a pivotable member (38) that is insertable through each first end of the first and second legs; but does not show the weighted base as having either an anti-slip / non-slip material positioned below the weighted base, or show an adhesive positioned on the cabinet and/or the weighted base. As to these coupling features, Sullivan teaches that it was known to mount a bracket to another structure via the use of a non-slip backing (901) or by way of adhesives, screws, hook and loop fasteners or any other fastener [col. 5]. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the coupling arrangement between the weighted base and the cabinet base of the combined prior art (such that an anti-slip material or an adhesive be applied between the two bases) in view of Sullivan’s known teaching that more than one coupling medium can be employed to secure one article to another where the end result would be the same since varying fastening mediums would yield predictable results in the absence of evidence that the incorporation of one coupler over another would be uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, as such, the claims are deemed unpatentable as obvious. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). As modified, the implementation of the additional coupling layer between the two bases would provide an enhanced grip between the bases thereby minimizing the chance that the weighted base would slide relative to the cabinet base when utilized by an end user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various stool / ladder / step assemblies using a counter weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
JOH
December 11, 2025
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637