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 .
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)(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) 13-16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(2) as being anticipated by Rusch (11,612,247).
Regarding claim 13, Ellsworth et al. disclose 13 an assembly type bar stool base 10, characterized in comprising: a connecting member 40 and at least three leg components 50, wherein the connecting member comprises a vertical joint, and at least three transverse joints 111 equal in number to the leg components, one end of each of the leg components is in detachable connection with a corresponding transverse joint of the connecting member.
Regarding claim 14, Rusch discloses the detachable connection is a screw connection 104.
Regarding claim 15, Rusch discloses a reinforcement frame, wherein the reinforcement frame 70 is in detachable fixation with the leg components from outside the assembly type bar stool base.
Regarding claim 16, Rusch discloses the detachable connection is a screw connection 104.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Rusch discloses each of the leg components 50 is a tubular leg, which is a steel tube with a circular, rectangular or square cross-section (col. 5, lines 3-21).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Rusch discloses the reinforcement frame 70 is a tubular reinforcement frame, which is in a circular ring shape.
Regarding claim 32, Rusch discloses an assembly type bar stool, characterized in comprising: the assembly type bar stool base of claim 13; a lifting column 32 with a lower end thereof fitted in the vertical joint of the connecting member of the assembly type bar stool base; and a seat mounted 20 to an upper end of the lifting column.
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) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusch.
Regarding claims 22, 23, Rusch fails to disclose the number of the transverse joints of the connecting member is three, and the number of the leg components is also three.
However, Rusch has no limitations that prevents from using only three legs. Furthermore, Rusch discloses any modifications are apparent without departing from the scope of the invention. In this instance, modifying the Rusch invention to have three legs will not depart from the scope. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to three legs to reduce cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 24, 25, Rusch in figures 1-8 discloses the number of the transverse joints of the connecting member is four, and the number of the leg components is also four.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to four legs to reduce cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a ornamental design on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusch in view of Hasegawa (11,891,149).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Hasegawa discloses wherein each of the leg components comprises an upright section supported on floor, a horizontal section as the one end, and an inclined section connecting the upright section and the horizontal section (see figure A below).
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 Hasegawa and include the leg features in the invention of Rusch because it is durable and cost effective.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Claim(s) 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusch in view of Rheault et al. (11,103,072).
Regarding claims 30, 31, Rheault et al. discloses the reinforcement frame 38 is a tubular reinforcement frame, which is in a polygonal ring shape having the same number of sides as the number of the leg components (fig. 1).
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 Rheault et al. and use a polygonal ring shape in the invention of Rusch in order to make the invention more durable with low cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 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.
Regarding claims 17-19, Rusch fails to disclose a fixed cover plate, wherein the fixed cover plate is detachably covered over the connecting member, the fixed cover plate has a vertical mounting hole aligned with and fixed to the vertical joint of the connecting member, and a plurality of transverse mounting recesses equal in number to the leg components, and each of the plurality of transverse mounting recesses snaps and fastens a corresponding leg component.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Conclusion
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