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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The Applicant’s recited components appear to be a list of parts and it is unclear how the Applicant’s recited components, such as support frames, positioning plate, an adjustment shaft, connecting block, support rods, Velcro, and positioning mechanism cooperate as system of parts and function together with a compressor device to reduce the volume of the sofa body and cushions, and how an angle of a support rod is adjusted through the shaft therefore the specification does not describe in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention
Claims 1-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. As previously stated, it is unclear how the Applicant’s structural limitations, such as support frames, positioning plate, an adjustment shaft, connecting block, support rods, Velcro, and positioning mechanism cooperate as system of parts and how they are organized and correlated to function together to present a complete operative device. It is particularly unclear what is meant by the Applicant’s recitations “the base (2) is surrounded by a jacket”, “the positioning column is adapted to the positioning hole”, “the positioning column is provided with anti-slip patterns”, “the positioning plate is adapted to the positioning groove” and render the claims confusing and indefinite.
Claims 1 and 3 recites the limitation "the positioning columns, the cover, and the bottom end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0085197 to Lucas in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0260879 to Nelson et al.
Claim 1, Lucas, as best understood, discloses a sofa body (10) and a base (20b), characterized in that the sofa body (1) is provided with cushions and pillows defined by backrest and seat (14,16)(fig. 4); and a support mechanism is provided on the base and includes a support frame (20,22), and support rods defined by guide members (34) are provided at both ends of the support frame; the support rods are equipped with an adjustment shaft defined by a damper piston (32), and a connecting block (38) is provided between the adjustment shaft and the base; the support frame is provided on left and right sides, and a positioning mechanism defined by a slider 36 is provided between the two support frames; the positioning mechanism comprises a positioning groove defined by an aperture and a positioning column defined by a block [0104]; the aperture opened on two support frames, and a positioning hole is opened on the positioning groove; the block is pressed against the positioning hole (fig. 13), and a positioning plate defined by seat slider 30 is provided between the two positioning columns that are symmetrically arranged. Lucas is silent to Velcro. Nelson discloses a sofa having a cover with Velcro fasteners [0123]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Velcro fastener of Nelson with the sofa of Lucas with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to removably secure to a cushion and prevent the cushion from moving or sliding during use.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0389758 to Deng et al. discloses a compressible sofa.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0415292 to Xiao discloses a compressible sofa.
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0120332 to Chou discloses a system for assembled furniture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673