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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (4,919,487) in view of Bitsch (4,518,202).
Regarding claim 1. A chair, comprising: a seat 28 having a front end and a rear end; two support legs 12, 14 each having a top end and a bottom end; a back 30 disposed at the rear end of the seat; a reinforcing member (the flat stand portion part of the chair that are connected to 19) connected to the two support legs; wherein, the two support legs are separated and arranged under the seat for supporting the seat; the reinforcing member is U-shaped with two ends.
However, Gibbs fails to disclose the two ends of the reinforcing member respectively expand outward forming two connecting portions each having a tail end, the tail end of each connecting portion is connected to the bottom end of each support leg, the connecting portions are inclined so as to taper inwards from front to back, such that multiple chairs may be stacked atop each other by their respective seats.
Instead, Bitsch discloses the two ends of the reinforcing member respectively expand outward forming two connecting portions each having a tail end, the tail end of each connecting portion is connected to the bottom end of each support leg, the connecting portions are inclined so as to taper inwards from front to back, such that multiple chairs may be stacked atop each other by their respective seats (see figure A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Bitsch and use an outward connecting portion with the reinforcement member and legs of Gibbs in order to make it compact and easy to carry.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 2, Gibbs discloses the reinforcing member and the two support legs 12, 14 are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 6, Gibbs discloses the top end of each support leg 12, 14 extends upward and is bent to form an arm rest 32, 34 having a first end and a second end, the back has two side edges arranged on the rear side of the seat and is integrated with the seat, a transverse rod 18 having two ends is arranged between the two support legs, and each end of the transverse rod is connected to the corresponding support leg; the front end of the seat 28 with two side edges 20, 22 is disposed on the transverse rod 18, two side edges of the seat are respectively connected to the corresponding support leg by a plurality of screws 48, two side edges of the back are respectively connected to the second end of the corresponding arm rest by a plurality of screws 35.
Regarding claim 7, Gibbs discloses a connecting rod between the two arm rests is connected to the second ends of the two arm rests (figure 1 shows the arm rest 32 goes around the back and continues with 34).
Regarding claim 8, Gibbs discloses the two support legs 12, 14, the transverse rod 18, the two arm rests 32, 34 and the connecting rod are integrally formed.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs (4,919,487) in view of Bitsch (11,930,936), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chase (7,837,161).
Regarding claims 3-5, Chase discloses each of the two connecting portions 26 of the reinforcing member is connected to a respective leg pad 10 which is disposed under the corresponding connecting portion, wherein each leg pad 10 comprises a pad body 30 and an adjustment block 63 which is telescopically disposed on the pad body 30, wherein each leg pad 10 has a strip-shaped clamping groove 32 for receiving the connecting portion 26 on a surface of the pad body 30 of the leg pad 10, each connecting portion 26 of the corresponding reinforcing member is positioned inside the clamping groove 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chase and use the foot assembly in the invention of Gibbs in order to prevent any damages and injuries.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights