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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,787 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structural limitations of the chair is claimed in the issued patent as in the claimed invention.
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) 13-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty K. Matthews et al. U.S. Patent 5,035,466 A (Matthews).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Matthews discloses a chair, comprising: a back support (Element 68); a seat support (Element 12) assembly including a seat support (Element 12) rotatable about an axis of rotation when the chair rests on a support surface (Element 18 axis of rotation); and a slider mechanism having a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration, wherein the slider mechanism in the locked configuration holds the back support relative to the seat support, and wherein the slider mechanism in the unlocked configuration allows the back support to translate to allow the back support to translate across between a back end of the seat support (Column 5 Line 36-56). Matthews does not directly disclose the slider mechanism to facilitate the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation; wherein the slider mechanism is configured to translate the back support forwardly across an upper surface of the seat support and a distance greater than 5 inches. Dimensional modification is common and well know in the art. A seatback adjustment arm and seat surface having a different dimension could yield the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation. Such a modification would provide a means to adjust the seat surface and seat back positions for a seated user.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Matthews discloses the chair further comprising a vertical support (portion of Element 14 adjacent Element 68) coupled to the back support and including a C-shaped section (curved Element 66 area) with a curvature that matches a curvature of a most rearward padded region of the seat support as viewed from a side of the chair.
Regarding claims 16 and 27, Matthews discloses the chair wherein the back support is rotatably coupled to a vertical support to allow rotation of the back support while the back support is positioned directly above the seat support, and wherein the seat support assembly has a pivot defining the axis of rotation (rotation about Element 18).
Regarding claims 17 and 28, Matthews discloses the chair wherein the slider mechanism includes a vertical support extending from the back support to the seat support assembly, and wherein the vertical support holds the back support spaced apart from the seat support so as to allow rotation of the back support relative to the seat support (Element 14).
Regarding claims 18 and 29, Matthews discloses the chair wherein the slider mechanism includes a plurality of sliders coupled to the seat support assembly and a connector coupling the back support to the slider mechanism (Figure 7, 8 Element 78).
Regarding claims 19, 22, and 30, Matthews discloses the chair wherein the back support in a forward position has a front surface positioned generally midway between a front end and the back end of the seat support (curvature shape and dimension of Element 14 modified). Dimensional modification is common and well known in the art. A seatback adjustment arm and seat surface having a different dimension could yield the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation. Such a modification would provide a means to adjust the seat surface and seat back positions for a seated user.
Regarding claims 20 and 31, Matthews discloses the chair further comprising a C-shaped support coupled to the back support and the slider mechanism, and wherein the C-shaped support is configured to extend over the seat support such that the back support translates a distance of at least 5 inches in a direction generally parallel to a cushion of the seat support. Dimensional modification is common and well know in the art. A seatback adjustment arm and seat surface having a different dimension could yield the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation. Such a modification would provide a means to adjust the seat surface and seat back positions for a seated user.
Regarding claim 23, Matthews discloses the chair wherein the slider mechanism includes: a bracket coupled to the C-shaped support, and a plurality of linear extenders coupled to the bracket and the seat support assembly (Figure 3).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Matthews discloses a chair, comprising: a back support (Element 68); a seat support (Element 12) including one or more wheels (Element 20) for rolling along a horizontal support surface; and a slider mechanism (Element 66) having a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration (Figure 4), wherein the slider mechanism in the locked configuration holds the back support relative to the seat support, and wherein the slider mechanism in the unlocked configuration allows the back support move linearly. Matthews does not directly disclose the slider mechanism to facilitate the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation; wherein the slider mechanism is configured to translate the back support forwardly across an upper surface of the seat support and a distance greater than 5 inches. Dimensional modification is common and well known in the art. A seatback adjustment arm and seat surface having a different dimension could yield the movement of the seatback across most of a distance between a back end of the seat support and the axis of rotation. Such a modification would provide a means to adjust the seat surface and seat back positions for a seated user.
Regarding claim 26, Matthews discloses the chair further comprising a vertical support coupled to the back support and including a C-shaped section with a curvature that matches a curvature of a most rearward padded region of the seat support as viewed from a side of the chair (Element 14 with curve Element 66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636