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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: ‘1064’ in fig. 10.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 7, line 17 refers to the seat portion as element ‘28’, however, the seat element should be indicated by element ‘22’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-14, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koenig (US 2,195,461 A).
Regarding claim 1, Koenig discloses a foldable chair (figs. 1 & 3) comprising a seat portion with a pair of rear legs (rear legs 12, fig. 1) extending backwardly from sides of the seat portion (fig. 1); a pair of front legs (front legs 10, fig. 1) each pivotally secured at a middle portion thereof foldable chair to a front portion of the seat portion (p. 1, 3-4, “[t]he chair comprises front legs 10 pivoted at 11 to inclined rear legs 12”; as shown in figs. 1-3); a backrest (back 17, 1); a pair of side links (brackets 16, figs. 1-2), each pivotally extending (p. 1, lines 14-16, “Cleat 20 at the extreme lower end of the back 17 is provided with end brackets 21 which are pivotally secured to the brackets 16 at 22”; figs. 1-3) between a side, bottom portion of the backrest (as shown in figs. 1-2, the back is provided with end brackets 21 which is pivotally secured at 22 via bracket 16), and a front portion of the rear legs (figs. 1-2); a pair of armrests (arms 14, fig. 1) each pivotally articulated at a rear end thereof to a middle portion of a side of the backrest (as shown in figs. 1-3, the arms 14 are pivotally articulated at rod 23) and at a front portion each armrest is pivotally coupled to a top portion of a respective front leg (p. 2, lines 54-56, the arms are pivotally secured to the front legs; as shown in figs. 1-3, see bracket 15); and a footrest (leg rest 44, fig. 1) displaceable between an extended position (p. 2, lines 1-45; fig. 1) and a stowed position (p. 2, lines 1-45; as shown in figs. 2 & 5), wherein said footrest is slidable between its respective positions along a curved path (as shown in fig. 5, as the leg rest 44 is being guided from its extended position to being stored underneath the seat slat 13, the sliding movement is along a curved path as the leg rest transitions to engage with grooves 54), and wherein the chair is manipulable between an erect, sitting position (fig. 1), and a folded position (fig. 3), wherein at the folded position the front legs are disposed parallel along side bars of the seat portion, and the backrest extends over the seat portion (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the rear legs (rear legs 12, fig. 1) are configured at a front portion thereof with a backrest arresting arrangement for pivotally arresting a bottom pivot of the backrest at the sitting position and however released at the folded position (as shown in figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein, at the folded position, a bottom end of each front leg faces backwards, in direction of the rear leg (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a backrest arresting arrangement in the form of a socket (opening in which pin 22 is formed in, figs. 1-3), the socket disposed at a front portion of the rear legs (fig. 2), and configured for partially cradling pivot pins projecting sidewards at a bottom portion of the backrest (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at the extended position a front bottom edge of the footrest reaches a bottom end of the front legs (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein, at the extended position of the footrest, a front portion of the seat portion overlaps over a rear portion of the footrest (as shown in figs. 1 & 5).
Regarding claim 12, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the footrest is configured, at a fore portion thereof, with a support leg (see element ‘47’ in fig. 1) for elevating a fore end of the footrest at the extended position (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein, at the stowed position, the support leg of the footrest is collapsed backwards and is fully received within a space below the footrest (p. 2, lines 30-33, “Prior to this operation the legs 41 are folded up against the bottom of the rest 44 and are subsequently maintained in this position, by a cross member 57 secured beneath legs 12”; as shown in figs. 1 & 6, legs 41 of the leg rest 44 is collapsed backwards and is fully received within a space below the rest 44).
Regarding claim 14, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein, at the stowed position, a front edge of the footrest extends flush over or within a front surface of the seat portion (as shown in in figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at the extended position the footrest smoothly coextends with the seat portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the side bars of the seat portion are coextensive with the rear legs (figs. 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jay et al. (US 5,588,696 A), hereinafter Jay.
Regarding claim 2, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the backrest is reclinable between at least two positions (as shown in figs. 1-3), and wherein the backrest pivots about the backrest arresting arrangement (as shown in figs. 1-2). However, Koenig does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a fore end of each armrest is configured with a plurality of arresting recesses selectively engageable with a positioning pin fixed at a top portion of each front leg, and wherein the backrest pivots about the backrest arresting arrangement.
Jay is in the field of a convertible backpack assembly (Abstract) and teaches wherein a fore end of each armrest is configured with a plurality of arresting recesses (slot 60, fig. 4) selectively engageable with a positioning pin (col. 4, lines 38-42, “[a]n elongate slot 60 in the bracket 52 which extends in a lengthwise direction with respect to the armrest is adapted to slidably receive a pin 59. The pin 59 is mounted on the upper end of the armrest bracket 40 and secures the armrest to the armrest bracket”; as shown in fig. 4) fixed at a top portion of each front leg (as shown in fig. 4, the bracket 52 is affixed to the armrest posts 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koenig such that each armrest had a bracket with corresponding recesses engageable with a pin as taught by Jay, in order to provide means to recline the back rest.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ambasz (US 2004/0104608 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses pivot pins (pin 22, fig. 2), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pivot pins of the backrest coaxially extend with a pivot axle of the side link articulated to the backrest.
However, Ambasz is in the field of a chair (Abstract) and teaches wherein a pivot pin coaxially extends with a pivot axle (Para. [0028], “[a] tubular bushing 30 interposed between the pivot pin and the coupling member facilitates pivotal motion of the coupling member and serves as a spacer to keep the walls of the tubular backrest support 12 from being deformed by the pivot pin/rivet”; as shown in figs. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pivot pin and opening in Koenig such that there was a bushing [i.e., a pivot axle] in order to minimize wear and stress on the surrounding structure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EOS (US 3,301,596 A)
Regarding claim 9, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses recesses (grooves 54, fig. 5) slidingly accommodating a guide rail (rails 45, fig. 5) laterally projecting alongside edges of the footrest (p. 2, lines 11-14, “ Rails 45 are provided with tongues 53 adapted to slide in grooves 54 in cleats 55 secured to the inner sides of the rear legs 12 and substantially parallel with the lower edge thereof”; as shown in fig. 5), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the recess is arc-shaped accommodated a curved guide rail.
However, Eos is in the field of collapsible chairs (col. 1, lines 7-8) and teaches arc-shaped recesses accommodating a curved guide rail (as shown in figs. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koenig such that the seating structure and corresponding guide rail was curved/arc shaped as taught by Eos, in order to provide more support to the underside of the user.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panigot (US 2021/0009176 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose a first locking arrangement provided for arresting the chair at the folded position, whereby at the folded position a first safety pin is insertable through at least one of the front legs and through a neighboring side bar of the seat portion, thereby preventing the chair from unfolding.
However, Panigot is in the field of a collapsible support structure (Abstract) and teaches a locking arrangement (removable pin 362, figs. 2A), provided for arresting the [support structure] at the folded position (Para. [0040], “the removable pin 362 may be reinserted into the third series of openings 360(1), 360(2) to retain the vertical support portion 200 in the completely folded position (as shown in FIG. 8C)”; as shown in figs. 2C & 8C), whereby at the folded position a first safety pin is insertable through at least one of the [frame members] and through a neighboring a neighboring side [plate], thereby preventing the [support structure] from unfolding (as shown in figs. 2A-2C & 8A-8C, when the support structure is in the folded position, the pin 362 is inserted into at least one of the frame members 210 (1) and through a neighboring U-Bracket 300 plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair of Koenig such that there was a first locking arrangement provided for arresting the chair at the folded position as taught by Panigot, in order to prevent the chair from unexpectedly unfolding, and thereby protecting users from injury.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koenig such that the locking arrangement was insertable through at least one of the front legs and through a neighboring side bar of the seat portion since in the folded position of Koenig, the front legs 10 and a side bar of the rear legs 12 lie substantially parallel to one another and therefore, only one pin would be needed to secure the two elements in place.
Regarding claim 17, Koenig in view of Panigot discloses the invention in claim 16, and Panigot further discloses wherein at the sitting position the first safety pin of the first locking arrangement is insertable through the [frame member] and through a front portion of the neighboring side [plate] of the [support structure], thereby preventing the chair from folding (Para. [0040], “[a]s best illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, when the removable pin 362 is inserted through the third series of openings 360(1), 360(2), the vertical support portion 200 is prevented from rotating about axis A, and is prevented from being reconfigured from the vertical position B”; as shown in figs. 2A-2C & 8A-8C). However, Panigot does not appear to specifically disclose that the first locking arrangement is insertable through the side leg and through a front portion of the neighboring side bar of a seat portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin of modified Koenig such that it was insertable through the side leg and through a front portion of the neighboring side bar since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so would prevent the chair from collapsing unexpectedly while in use, which would reduce injury risk.
Regarding claim 18, Koenig discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a second locking arrangement is provided for arresting the chair at the sitting position, whereby a second safety pin is insertable through a bottom end of at least one of the side links and through a front portion of a neighboring rear leg, thereby preventing the chair from folding.
However, Panigot is in the field of a collapsible support structure (Abstract) and teaches a locking arrangement (removable pin 362, figs. 2A) provided for arresting the chair at the sitting position, thereby preventing the chair from folding (Para. [0040], “As best illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, when the removable pin 362 is inserted through the third series of openings 360(1), 360(2), the vertical support portion 200 is prevented from rotating about axis A, and is prevented from being reconfigured from the vertical position B”; as shown in figs. 2A and 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chair of Koenig such that there was a [second] locking arrangement provided for arresting the chair at the folded position as taught by Panigot, in order to prevent the chair from unexpectedly folding, and thereby protecting users from injury.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Koenig such that the locking arrangement was insertable through a bottom end of at least one of the side links and through a front portion of a neighboring rear leg since in the folded position of Koenig, a bottom end of the side links and a front portion of the rear legs 12 lie substantially parallel to one another and therefore, only one pin would be needed to secure the two elements in place.
Regarding claim 19, Koenig in view of Panigot discloses the invention in claim 18, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein, at the folded position, the second safety pin of the second locking arrangement is insertable through a side portion of the stowed footrest, thereby preventing the footrest from sliding into an extended position.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin of modified Koenig such that the locking pin was insertable through a side portion of the stowed footrest, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so would prevent the footrest from extending when in the folded position, thereby enhancing safety for all users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 31 are 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 invention: See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights