N!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.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on August 14, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on 8/14/2024 and 1/15/2025 has been considered as to the merits.
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 preliminary 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 that the window for paying the 3.5 year maintenance fee is now OPEN. The first day to pay the fee was August 16, 2025, the surcharge begins on February 18, 2026 and the last day to pay is August 17 2026.
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.” No explanation of support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to claims has been provided.
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).
Recapture Analysis
Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Recapture Analysis: Step 1
Reissue claims 1-35 are broader than patent claims 1-20.
Independent reissue claim 1 does not require the following limitations that are present in patent claim 1:
“one pair of aligned pivot axes on the cradle base”; and
Pivotal connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base “only at the one pair of aligned pivot axes by a pivot pin connection;” and
Therefore, step 1 of the three-step test is met for reissue claims 1, 10-11 and 21-26.
Independent reissue claim 3 does not require the following limitations that are present in patent claim 3:
“one pair” of aligned pivot axes
Therefore, step 1 of the three-step test is met for reissue claims 3-9 and 27-28.
Independent reissue claim 12 does not require the following limitations that are present in patent claim 12:
“one pair of aligned pivot axes”
Therefore, step 1 of the three-step test is met for reissue 12-20 and 29-31.
Independent reissue claim 32 does not require the following limitations that are present in patent claim 12:
“one pair of aligned pivot axes”
Therefore, step 1 of the three-step test is met for reissue 32-35.
Recapture Analysis: Step 2, first sub-step
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP § 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
During original prosecution of the ‘853 patent, the examiner did not reject any claims over art. During the prosecution of the supplemental examination proceeding 96/00428 of the ‘853 patent, the Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 USC 102 (a)(2) over Glass, claims 1-2 and 10-11 under 35 USC 103 over Jo in view of Gaffney. The Examiner indicated claims 3-9 and 12-20 as patentable and/or confirmed. In Applicant’s response filed on October 10, 2023, Applicant amended claim 1 to require “the lift-recline base being pivotably connected to the cradle base only at the one pair of aligned pivot axes by a pivot pin connection.” Applicant argued on page 10 of their response that Glass fails to disclose a “pivot pin connection” as required by claim 1. Applicant further amended claim 1 to include “in a forward-backward direction of the chair” and argued on page 11 of their response the Jo in view of Gaffney fail to disclose pivoting in a forward-backward direction as required by claim 1.
The Examiner issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam Certificate in response to applicant’s October 10, 2023 filing on November 7, 2023. The Examiner cited the following reasons for patentability an/or confirmation:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following limitations of allowed claim 1, now patent claim 1, were added as compared to originally canceled claim 1 and are considered surrender-generating limitations (SGL):
Pivotal connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base “by a pivot pin connection;” and
Pivoting the lift-recline base “in a forward-backward direction of the chair.”
Recapture Analysis: Step 2, second sub-step
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitations are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
New reissue claim 1 is broadened with respect to patent claim 1 to omit the following surrendered subject matter:
“a pivot pin connection”
Reissue claim 1 and those claims depending therefrom include some of the details of the surrendered subject matter (i.e. pivoting of the lift-recline base in a forward-backward direction of the chair) and eliminate some of the details (i.e. pivotal connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base by a pivot pin connection) of the surrendered subject matter. Therefore, step 2 of the three-part test is met for claims 1, 10-11 and 21-26.
Recapture Analysis: Step 3
The third step in the recapture analysis considers the significance of claim limitations that were added and deleted during prosecution of the patent to be reissued in order to determine whether the reissue claims are materially narrowed in other respects so as to avoid the recapture rule.
As set forth in MPEP § 1412.02, subsection II(C), if a surrender-generating limitation (SGL) has not been entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application but rather has been made less restrictive in the reissue application claim, “[i]t must be determined what portion of the amendment or argued limitation has been retained, and whether the retained portion materially narrows the original claims to avoid recapture.”
Reissue claim 1 retains a portion of the SGLs by retaining the limitation requiring pivoting of the lift-recline base “in a forward-backward direction of the chair” that was added prior to the Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) in SE 96/00428. Reissue claim 1 omits a portion of the SGLs by deleting the limitation requiring the lift-recline base to be pivotably connected to the cradle base “by a pivot pin connection.” Reissue claim 1, therefore, is materially narrowed with respect to the original claim 1 by retaining a portion of the SGLs, however, the retained portion of the SGL, requiring the pivoting of the lift-recline base with respect to the cradle base ”in a forward-backward direction of the chair”, is well known in the prior art. The limitation is well known in the prior art as evidenced by Glass (3,235,304), prior art applied during the prosecution of the SE 96/00428 proceeding, which discloses a lift-recline base (28) pivotable with respect to a cradle base (12) in a forward-backward direction of the chair. Therefore, the retained portion of the SGLs does not avoid the recapture rule.
Reissue claim 1 is narrowed in other respects in comparison to patent claim 1 by requiring pivotal connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base “about a single axis located at a rear of the cradle base.” This narrowing limitation, however, is unrelated to the SGLs. The SGLs pertain to the physical form of the pivot connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base being a “pivot pin connection.” This new limitation relates to the location of the pivot connection between the lift-recline base and the cradle base being a “single axis located at a rear of the cradle base.” Reissue claim 1 is narrowed with respect to patent claim 1 in other respects not related to the SGLs and therefore does not avoid the recapture rule.
For these reasons, reissue claims 1-2, 10-11 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 USC 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrenders in the application of the patent upon which the present issue is based.
Claim Interpretation
As set forth above, Applicant has failed to provide support for amendments made in this reissue application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.173(c). Following a review of the originally filed application papers, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to provide support for an embodiment as claimed in claim 1. It appears that claims 3 and 12 pertain to the embodiments shown in Figure 33 and 34. It appears that claim 32 pertains to the embodiment shown in Figure 34. Applicant is asked to provide support as required by 37 CFR 1.173(c) in response to this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an embodiment showing a lift-recline base that is pivotably connected to the cradle base about a single axis located at a rear of the cradle base and a lift-recline base that pivots about the single axis in a forward-backward direction of the chair (as set forth in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 2: It appears as if the word “to” should be inserted between the words - - actuator- - and - - adjust - - for the sake of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-2,10-11 and 21-26 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.
Claim 1 requires the lift-recline base to be pivotably connected to the cradle base “about a single axis located at a rear of the cradle base” and “pivoting the lift-recline base about the single axis in a forward-backward direction of the chair.” Figure 34 depicts the only embodiment of the device that has a lift-recline base (426) that is pivotal about a single axis, defined by (470), at a “rear of the cradle base.” In this embodiment, however, the lift-recline base does not pivot in a forward backward direction of the chair. Movement of the lift-recline base is constrained to rotational movement about the pivot axis defined at (470). This constrained pivot point (470) prevents the lift-recline base from pivoting in a forward-backward direction of the chair. The disclosure does not appear to support a single embodiment with a lift-recline base being pivotably connected to the cradle base about a single axis located at a rear of the cradle base AND a lift recline base that is pivotal about the single axis in a forward-backward direction of the chair.
Claims 2, 10-11 and 21-26 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 32-35 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 32 recites “a cradle base the recline base being pivotally connected to the cradle base” in lines 4-5. It appears that a semi colon may be missing between the words “base” and “the.” Applicant may have intended to recite “a cradle assembly, including: a cradle base; the recline base being pivotably connected to the cradle base…” Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 12, 14, 17, 9-20 and 27-30 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 aligned pivot axis (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)).
With respect to claim 12, Shih discloses a recliner chair (Figure 1) comprising: a recline chair mechanism providing a reclining movement, the recline chair mechanism (13)(13)(30) having a recline base (13)(13); a seat (10) and a back (50) connected to the recline chair mechanism (13)(13)(30), with the back being effectively connected relative to the seat; 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), an upstanding legs carrying a cross bar with stop portion (22) mounted thereon; standoffs that extend above the cradle base, each standoff configured in the shape triangle with an open bottom, the recline base (13)(13) being pivotably connected to the cradle base at a single axis extending through the standoffs at pivot portions (131) and ears (21); a cradle actuator (30) connected between the cradle base at (22) and the recline base (13)(13) via connections (132) and (121) for pivoting the recline base (13)(13) about the single axis and a controller (80) that controls movement of the cradle actuator.
With respect to claim 14, a recline actuator (60), and the controller (80) is further configured to actuate the recline actuator (60) [to] adjust a position of the seat (10) (see column 4, lines 29-38).
With respect to claim 17, 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 19, an extendable footrest (44) connected to the recline chair mechanism (13)(13)(30).
With respect to claim 20, the recline chair mechanism includes two pantograph linkages (40) connected between the seat (10) and the footrest (44).
With respect to claim 29, 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 30, 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).
18 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 he 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 and 13 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.
With respect to claim 13, Shih does not explicitly disclose pins extending along the single axis. Shih does disclose holes on portions (131) of the recline base and holes on portions (22) 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 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 claims 9 and 18, 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) 7 and 16 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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (8,177,296). Shih does not explicitly disclose pins extending along the single axis. Shi does disclose holes at formed in elements (21) and corresponding aligned holes formed in elements (131). 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.
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
Claims 6 and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: de la Haye (6,056,362) and Lin (5,312,153).
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:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993