DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1-12 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 regards to claim 1, the backrest plate is claimed as being "vacuum-formed plastic" and the teeth are claimed as being formed by "vacuum-forming or by molding". The backrest plate and the teeth are also claimed as being on the fixed flange (which is part of the backrest plate), meaning they are one piece - as such, it is not clear how these elements could be made from two different processes. Claims 2-4 are rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
In regards to claim 5, while not dependent on claim 1, reference is made to the limitations of claim 1, and therefore inherits the lack of clarity from claim 1. Claims 6-12 are rejected as they are dependent on claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (CN-112535371-A) in view of Waite (US-20090146467-A1).
Leng discloses a plastic and steel folding chair comprising a seat plate assembly, backrest plate, and metal structures.
Claim 1 – Leng teaches a chair backrest structure (figure 10), comprising:
a backrest plate (element 10 in figure 10), and
a fixed frame (elements 31 and 33 in figure 10) for supporting the backrest plate, wherein:
the backrest plate is a plastic element (“the backrest plate is a plastic plate” in paragraph 2 of the Contents of the Invention),
the fixed frame is a metal element (element 30 in figure 1, referred to as “metal bracket” throughout the description),
at least an upper edge of the backrest plate is folded backward to form a fixed flange (element 12 in figures 10 and 11),
the fixed frame comprises an installation slot corresponding to the fixed flange (element 34 in figure 10),
the backrest plate is a vacuum-formed plastic plate (“the backrest plate is a plastic plate” in paragraph 2 of the Contents of the Invention, the plastic plate being vacuum-formed is a product-by-process limitation and does not have patentable weight), and
the fixed flange is disposed in the installation slot (“the buckle edge is inserted into the slot” in the second paragraph of the technical solution).
Leng does not teach a surface of the fixed flange comprises one or more inverted protruding teeth formed by vacuum-forming or by molding, and Leng does not teach the one or more inverted protruding teeth are buckled to an edge of the installation slot to limit the fixed flange from being separated from the installation slot.
Waite discloses a folding chair. Waite teaches a surface of the fixed flange comprises one or more inverted protruding teeth formed by vacuum-forming or by molding (elements 92, 94, and 96 in figure 13, the plastic being vacuum-formed or molded is a product-by-process limitation and does not have patentable weight), and the one or more inverted protruding teeth are buckled to an edge of the installation slot (elements 86, 88, and 90 in figure 13) to limit the fixed flange from being separated from the installation slot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fixed flange of Leng with the protruding teeth of Waite to limit the fixed flange from being separated from the installation slot.
Claim 2 – Leng teaches the upper edge and left and right edges of the backrest plate are all folded backward to form the fixed flange (element 12 in figure 10).
Leng does not teach the one or more inverted protruding teeth are a plurality of inverted protruding teeth, and the plurality of inverted protruding teeth are arranged on the fixed flange at even intervals from beginning to end.
Waite teaches the one or more inverted protruding teeth are a plurality of inverted protruding teeth, and the plurality of inverted protruding teeth are arranged on the fixed flange at even intervals from beginning to end (elements 92, 94, and 96 in figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use more than one protruding tooth to ensure the two parts are held together more securely, and it would have been obvious to arrange the protruding teeth evenly from beginning to end to distribute any separation force evenly across the entire area.
Claim 3 – Leng teaches the fixed frame comprises two supporting sections with left-right symmetry (element 31 in figure 10) and a mounting section connected to top ends of the two supporting sections (element 33 in figure 10),
the upper edge of the backrest plate is arc-shaped (element 33 in figure 10),
a shape of the mounting section of the fixed frame cooperates with a shape of the upper edge of the backrest plate (elements 33 and 10 in figure 10), and
the installation slot extends from a top of a first one of the two supporting sections to a top of a second one of the two supporting sections after passing through the mounting section (element 34 in figure 10).
Claim 4 – Leng does not teach the fixed frame further comprises a lateral rod connected between lower parts of the two supporting sections.
Waite does teach the fixed frame further comprises a lateral rod connected between lower parts of the two supporting sections (figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leng with the lateral rod of Waite for greater stability between the front legs.
Claim 5 – Leng teaches a foldable chair (figure 1), comprising:
the chair backrest structure according to claim 1 (taught by Leng in view of Waite above),
a chair leg (element 32 in figure 1), and
a seat plate (element 20 in figure 1), wherein:
a structure between the chair leg and the seat plate of the foldable chair comprises a sliding seat (element 24 in figure 2) and a connecting shaft (taught in figure 1 connecting element 20 to element 31),
the sliding seat is slidably connected to a side edge of the seat plate (in figure 2, element 24 slidably connects to element 22, creating the side edge of the seat plate, element 20 from figure 1),
the connecting shaft is disposed on the chair leg (figure 1),
the sliding seat is rotatably connected to the connecting shaft (element 1, the various seat elements rotating in relation to the chair leg is an inherent function when connecting the parts with a connecting shaft),
the sliding seat is U-shaped (element 241 in figure 4),
a plastic lining shaped as a U is disposed in the sliding seat (element 223 is a U-shaped portion of the plastic lining in figure 3),
the plastic lining is attached to an inner surface of the sliding seat (element 222 is a portion of the plastic lining that attaches to the inner surface created by the U-shape of the sliding seat, element 241),
the sliding seat is sleeved on the side edge of the seat plate from bottom to top (element 241, the U-shape of the sliding seat is comprised of two layers folded on top of one another, where one layer acts as the sleeve),
the plastic lining comprises a pressing edge (element 225 in figure 4),
the side edge of the seat plate comprises a positioning step (the stepped edge of 24 directly under element 225 of the plastic lining), and
the pressing edge abuts an upper side of the positioning step to limit movement of the sliding seat in a vertical direction to prevent the sliding seat from being separated from the side edge of the seat plate in the vertical direction (figure 4).
Claim 11 – Leng teaches the plastic lining is buckled to the sliding seat (the connecting shaft inherently buckles the plastic lining to the sliding seat).
Claim 12 – Leng teaches the connecting shaft is fixedly hinged to the chair leg (the connecting shaft inherently is a hinge point in folding chairs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:00 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636