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 .
This is the first Office Action for the serial number 18/809,605, EXTENDABLE SEAT FRAME AND FURNITURE THEREOF, filed on 8/20/24.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I and species I in the reply filed on 6/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant submits that the elected subcombination and the nonelected combination are not properly distinct under MPEP 806/05(c). In particular, the patentability of the combination is dependent upon the particular structure and functionality of the claimed subcombination.”. This is not found persuasive because the combination requires the examiner to search outside of his art unit for furniture with first and second cushion, etc which puts a serious burden on examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-13 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 1, line 9, “the extension part is configured to drive the extension part to flip” is indefinite because it is not clear what the applicant meant by “flip” and it is not clear how one part can drive to flip on it’s own?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the extendable seat frame" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent # 9,854,916 to Murphy.
Murphy teaches an extendable seat frame comprising a fixed base (32), a seat frame main body (26), configured to move relatively above the fixed base and an extension apparatus (34, 36), configurated to be rotatably connected to the fixed base and rotatably connected to the seat frame main body so as to enable the extendable seat frame to switch between a retracted state and an extended state. Wherein the extension apparatus comprises at least an extension part (36), one end of the extension part is rotatably connected to an end of the seat frame main body that is away from an extending direction. Murphy teaches a driver (46-47) that is placed on the fixed base, an output end (40, 42, 44, 45) of the drive is movably connected to the seat frame main body, and the driver is configured to drive movement of the seat frame main body.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy.
Murphy teaches the extension part but fails to specify the length of the extension part within 200-350mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extension part to 200-350mm to provide designer’s preference for the length of the extension part.
Regarding claim 3, Murphy teaches the seat frame main body but fails to teach a maximum moving distance of the seat frame body is within 450-600mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moving distance for the seat frame body to 450-600mm to provide designer’s choice for the maximum moving distance of the seat frame body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11-13 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 4, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 especially with “wherein the extension apparatus further comprises at least one rotating frame that is rotatably connected to the extension part and rotatably connected to the fixed base”. Regarding claim 11, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from independent claim 1 and dependent claims 10-11 especially with “the driver is drivingly connected to the slide rail component, and the driver is configured to drive the sliding component to slide relative to the slide rail component.” Regarding claim 13, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from independent claim 1 and dependent claims 10 and 13 especially with “the driver is configured to drive the extendable section to move telescopically relative to the fixed section.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent # 5,138,727 to Hanes et al.
US Patent # 4,509,216 to Blevins et al.
US Patent Application Publication # 2018/0360217 to Fei et al.
US Patent # 12,502,000 to Liu
US Patent Application Publication # 2024/0138577 to Yang et al.
The cited references above teach the extendable seat frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
ALFRED J. WUJCIAK III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 7/20/26
Prosecution Insights