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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,412,853 (the ‘853 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant’s notice of prior proceedings filed on January 26, 2026 has been made of record.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on April 28, 2026.
Matters of Form
37 CFR 1.173(d) requires changes made relative to the patent to be shown by markings, wherein matter to be omitted by reissue must be closed in brackets and matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. In the instant case, the ‘853 patent was changed by the prior conclusion of Supplemental Examination 96/000428. It is noted that changes being made via the amendment of the subject reissue application are made relative to the patent, as changed by the prior proceeding, in accordance with MPEP 1453 IV (a).
Applicant is reminded that the “filing of a reissue application does not alter the schedule of payments of maintenance fees on the original patent.” (See MPEP 1415.01). A review of the maintenance fees of the ‘853 patent shows payment of 3.5 year maintenance fee has been received.
37 CFR 1.173(c) states “ Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
Applicant’s statement under 37 CFR 1.173(c) filed with the preliminary amendment on August 14, 2024 has been made of record. This paper was overlooked at the time of writing of the non-final office action. Applicant’s subsequent statement under 37 CFR 1.173(c) filed with the amendment on April 28, 2026 has been made of record.
Although not required, it is suggested that the first line of the specification be amended to contain language to help ensure that the Office recognizes the application as a reissue application even though the application data sheet contains the benefit claim(s).
Drawings
Applicant’s replacement drawing filed on April 28, 2026 has been received. The changes included therein are acceptable, however, according to 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3), amended Figures must be identified as “amended.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Recapture
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, filed on April 28, 2026, has overcome the recapture rejection under 35 USC 251.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - New Matter
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought, as discussed in detail below in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description.
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 1-2, 10-11 and 21-26 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. Claim 1 recites the lift-recline base being pivotably connected to the cradle base “by a pivot pin connection at a single axis located at a rear of the cradle base.” This limitation encompasses an embodiment comprising a single pivot pin, defining the single axis, located at the rear of the cradle base. It does not appear that Applicant has support for such an embodiment. Applicant’s specification recites plural “pins” at aligned pivot axes, but fails to recite a singular “pin” as recited in amended claim 1. Claims 2, 10-11 and 21-25 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
15. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection I, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
16. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 25 fails to further limit claim 1 by merely reciting “a pivot pin connection that extends along the single axis” which text is already included in independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 3-4, 8 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shih (8,177,296).
With respect to claim 3, Shih discloses a lift and recliner chair comprising: a lift and recline chair mechanism (13)(12)(13)(40) having a lift-recline base (13)(12)(13); a seat (11) and a back (50) connected to the lift and recline chair mechanism, with the back (50) being effectively connected relative to the seat (11); a cradle assembly (20) including a cradle base, defined by 4 frame members arranged in a generally square configuration, each frame member carrying two wheels (23) and upstanding legs carrying a cross bar with stop portion (22) mounted thereon; and a single axis that includes respective aligned pivot axes (defined by points of intersection between (131) and (21)) that extend through respective standoffs that are located above the cradle base, each standoff configured in the shape of a triangle with an open bottom; the lift-recline base being pivotably connected to the cradle base only at the aligned pivot axes; a cradle actuator (30) connected between the cradle base (20) and the lift-recline base (13)(12)(13) for pivoting the lift recline base about the aligned pivot axis; a controller (80) that controls movement of the cradle actuator (30) and at least one lift-recline actuator (60) that controls a lifting movement and a reclining movement of the lift and recline chair mechanism (13)(12)(13)(40).
With respect to claim 4, the controller (80) is further configured to actuate the cradle actuator (30) to move the lift-recline base (13)(12)(13) forward as the at least one lift-recline actuator (60) is actuated to raise the seat (11) to incased a vertical position of the seat.
With respect to claim 8, the controller (80) is configured to provide a fully reclined and cradle position (see Figures 6 and 8) in which the recline actuator is in a fully reclined position (note the retracted position of recline actuator (60) shown in Figure 6) and the cradle actuator (30) is in a forward-most extended position (note the rearward position of pivot (320) with respect to rotation member (31) in Figure 8).
With respect to claim 27, the standoffs comprise rear standoffs on the cradle base given that a portion of the standoff extends from a rear of the cradle base located near stop (22).
With respect to claim 28, the respective aligned pivot axes are defined by holes in the rear standoffs (see Figure 2, holes in element (21) and holes in element (131)).
Claim(s) 32-33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (8,973,997).
With respect to claim 32, Green et al. disclose a recliner chair in Figure 6 and 7, comprising: a recliner chair mechanism (92)(89)(52)(56) providing a reclining movement, the recline chair mechanism having a recline base (52)(56); a seat (88) and a back (90) connected to the recline chair mechanism (92)(89)(52)(56), the back (90) being effectively connected relative to the seat (88); a cradle assembly (96)(98)(100) including: a cradle base (96), the recline base (52)(56) being pivotably connected to the cradle base (96), by way of links (52) which form part of the recline base (52)(56), about a single axis (unlabeled) defined by a pivot point extending between each standoff (54) and each link (52), located at a rear of the cradle base (see Figure 6); a cradle actuator (22)(24) connected between the cradle base (96) and the recline base (56) by way of intervening structures including (28) and (89) for pivoting the recline base (56) about the singl axis; and a controller (46) that controls movement of the cradle actuator (22)(24).
With respect to claim 33, the single axis is located above the cradle base (see Figures 6 and 7).
With respect to claim 35, the cradle actuator (22)(24) is connected to a front of the recline base (52)(56). The Examiner is interpreting “the front of the recline base” to coincide with a portion of the recline base (52)(56) that is pivotally attached to portion (89) of the recliner chair mechanism for the purposes of this claim. No frame of reference for the phrase “the front” is set forth in the claim
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (8,177,296).
With respect to claim 5, Shi discloses the “cradle actuator actuated” and the lift-recline base moved forward in Figure 8. The vertical lift position of the seat, at pivot point (112) for example, is at a first height above fixed element (22). Shih discloses the “cradle actuator in a non-actuated position” and the lift-recline base moved forward in Figure 10. The vertical lift position of the seat, at pivot point (112) for example, is at a second smaller height above fixed element (22). Shi does not disclose the change in height is at least two inches, however such a change would be a direct function of the length of the suspension arms (13) and the size of the arc formed when the suspension arms (13) swing in reaction to actuator (30). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to experiment with various length suspension arms to achieve different changes in height 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (8,177,296) in view of Pollard (9,743,770). Shih discloses all claimed elements with the exception of a controller that comprises a processor and a memory wherein the memory is configured to store pre-set actuator positions.
Pollard teaches a hand held control device for controlling the motion of a lift-recline chair. Hand held control device (160) includes pre-set positions (for example, zero gravity or TB position) and a memory button and programming button and is programmed to control actuators 82 and 140. The program is held on a Peripheral Interface Controller (PIC) which constitutes a processor as claimed (see column 10, lines 17-51).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of filing to modify the general controller (80) disclosed by Shih to include a processor, memory and pre-set positions as taught by Pollard since such a controller provides increased ease of use for the seat occupant enabling adjustment of the device to a desired position by the press of a single button.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (8,177,296) in view of Crum (US 2014/0327282). With respect to claim 9, Shih discloses the cradle actuator (30) is an electric motor driven actuator (see column 2, line 59). Shih further discloses that both the cradle actuator and the recline actuator (60) are electrically controlled (see column 4, lines 29-38). Shih does not disclose a recline actuator (60) that is motor driven.
Crum teaches a rocker recliner chair like Shih. Crum teaches a compressible gas spring (420) that allows the backrest assembly (400) to recline with respect to the seat assembly (300). Crum further teachers that the biasing member may be any suitable biasing member, such as a gas dampener, a linear actuator, a power drive, a motor drive, or an electric screw drive among other appropriate biasing members.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of filing of the invention to use a motor to power the recline actuator of Shih given that Crum teaches a motor drive actuator as an appropriate biasing member for use within a recline chair device, and use of a motor actuator would require less force to be imparted by the seat occupant, thereby making the recline motion easier for the seat occupant.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (8,973,997). Green et al. do not explicitly disclose pins extending along the single axis. Green et al. do disclose holes at the bottom of links (52) of the recline base (52)(56) and holes on portions (54) on the cradle base, wherein the holes are aligned to enable pivoting between the recline base and the cradle base. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to assume that a pin structure is positioned within the holes to enable the disclosed motion. Use of a pin to enable the disclosed pivoting motion would require no undue experimentation and would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 12-20 and 29-31 are allowed.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Matters of Form: As set forth above, the Examiner notes that applicant has indeed provided the necessary explanations of support and statements under 37 CFR 1.173(c).
Recapture Analysis: As set forth above, Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the recapture rejection.
Claim Interpretation and Drawing Objection: In light of Applicant’s remarks the previously recited 112(a) rejection and drawing objection has been overcome. As noted above, however, the amended drawings must be labelled “amended.”
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112: Applicant’s amendment and remarks have overcome the previously recited 112 rejections. A new 112(a) rejection is set forth above in light of applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 102: With respect to claim 3, Applicant argues that Shih does not disclose an lift part and only discloses a rocking chair. The Examiner contends that the rocking action of Shih enables at least portions of the seat to lift. See Figures 8 and 9 and that arc through which lift recline base (12)(13)(13) travels. This arc shows that portions of the chair lift and lower and move forward and backward. The Examiner therefore maintains, the under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, the Shih device discloses a “lift-recline chair mechanism” as required by the claim given that portions of the chair exhibit lift and recline.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 are persuasive. Shih does not disclose standoffs that extend above the cradle base and that are located at a rear of the cradle base.
With respect to claim 32, Applicant argues that Green fails to disclose a pivotal connection at a rear of the base and that there is no cradle motion in Green. Motion of the Green device is controlled partially by curved linkage 52. The curved nature of the linkage enables both forward and rearward motion and upward and downward motion of seating components attached thereto. This compound motion equates to cradling motion under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase. Applicant further argues that the pivot is not at the rear of the cradle base. See Figure 6. While the pivot is not located at a terminal end portion at the rear of the cradle base, it is located rearward of a center. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner contends that the pivot is at “a rear.” Nothing in the claim requires the pivot to be at a rear terminal end of the cradle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights