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 filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part. The rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-22 have been considered but are moot because the newly presented limitations to claims 14, 17 and 20 have overcome the grounds of rejection to said claims applied in the prior rejection of record.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference to Tang concerns a portable folding-chair frame instead of a recliner mechanism of a recliner according to claim 1 (pg. 18), it is noted that a reference is still anticipatory, even if the reference is not in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, when the reference explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in a claim. See MPEP 2131. The limitations of claim 1 fail to set forth distinct structural differences between the reference to Tang and the structure of the claimed recliner mechanism, with respect to the recited functions. The legs (20, 22, 24, 26) and side supports (28, 30) are linked by connectors (35, 45, 50) and other adjustment devices that function as a recliner mechanism, in that they function to adjust the recline position of the chair; wherein the chair is thereby structurally capable of being and functioning as a “recliner”.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference to , it is noted that a reference is still anticipatory, even if the reference is not in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, when the reference explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in a claim. See MPEP 2131. The limitations of claim 1 fail to set forth distinct structural differences between the reference to von Hoffman and the structure of the claimed recliner mechanism, with respect to the recited functions. Each tubular seat support (6, 7) is linked to a telescoping back support (4, 5), which defines a pair of opposing side linkages comprising inter alia two interconnected links as claimed, wherein the linkages function as a recliner mechanism in that they function to position the chair into a reclined orientation when the chair is unfolded, and wherein the chair is thereby structurally capable of being and functioning as a “recliner”.
In response to applicant's argument that claims 10 and 14 have been amended to further define the claimed invention over the reference to Tang and von Hoffman (pg. 18), it is noted that these references were not relied upon in the rejection of these claims and their dependents.
In response to applicant’s argument that claim 10 has been amended to define over the rejection by Jones under 35 USC 102 (pg. 19), the newly presented limitation “pivoting at least a portion of each of the first side linkage and the second side linkage inward toward the other side linkage about the first pivot point and the second pivot point, respectively” has further defined the instant claim over the structure and corresponding function of the chair disclosed by Jones. Moreover, it is noted that applicant correctly identified the typographical error in the patent number cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 for the reference to Jones, and responded with respect to the reference to Jones applied in the body of the rejection and cited by applicant on the IDS form filed 30-June-2025. Lastly, while applicant did not include an argument regarding the reference to Jones applied against claim 1, it is noted that a reference is still anticipatory when the reference explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in a claim, even if the reference is not in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. See MPEP 2131. The limitations of claim 1 fail to set forth distinct structural differences between the reference to Jones and the structure of the claimed recliner mechanism, with respect to the recited functions.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/30/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The correction to the disclosure, received in reply filed on 7/29/26, is acknowledged. The correction is acceptable, and has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (US 6402230).
Claim 1- Tang discloses a recliner mechanism of a recliner (col. 6: 57-59) comprised of a plurality of legs (col. 6: 35-44) that function as the claimed linkage and support elements, the mechanism comprising:
a first side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (20, 22, 28), the plurality of pivotally interconnected links including a first seat deck link (20) configured (with an upper end 111) to couple to a seat deck (35) of the recliner and a first back rest link (28) configured (to engage attachment parts 132, 134) to couple to a back rest (comprising the upright portion of the fabric support 131, fig. 5) of the recliner;
a second side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (24, 26, 30), the plurality of pivotally interconnected links including a second seat deck link (26) configured (with an upper end 117) to couple to the seat deck of the recliner and a second back rest link (30) configured to couple to the back rest of the recliner; and
at least one support member (comprising intermediate elements 12-18, 160) having a first end (left end) coupled to the first side linkage and a second end (right end) coupled to the second side linkage, wherein the first side linkage is movable relative to the second side linkage from a collapsed configuration (fig. 4) to an expanded configuration (figs. 1-2).
Claim 2- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one support member (12-18, 160) comprises at least one of a cross tube (stabilization bar 160), a torque tube, and a drive tube.
Claim 3- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first end (left end B) of the at least one support member is coupled to the first side linkage at a first pivot point (col. 8: 56-60) and the second end (right end B) of the at least one support member is coupled to the second side linkage at a second pivot point (col. 8: 56-60), and wherein the first side linkage and the second side linkage are movable (away from each other) about the first pivot point and the second pivot point from the collapsed configuration (fig. 4) to the expanded configuration (fig. 1-2).
Claim 4- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first end (B) of the at least one support member and the second end (B) of the at least one support member are configured to mechanically lock (hinge-lock & press-fit) to the respective first and second side linkage in the expanded configuration (col. 8: 60-64, figs. 13A-B, 15A-B).
Claim 5- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first end (B) of the at least one support member and the second end (B) of the at least one support member are configured to receive a respective first and second fastener (163, 166) to mechanically lock (col. 8: 60-64) to the respective first and second side linkage in the expanded configuration (figs. 13A-B, 15A-B).
Claim 6- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one support member (12-18, 160) comprises a hinged tube (160) comprising: a first section coupled to the first side linkage at a first pivot point (col. 8: 56-60); and a second section coupled to the second side linkage at a second pivot point (fig. 2); and a hinge section (comprising hinge 162) comprising a third pivot point (figs. 14A-14B), wherein the first section is movably coupled to the second section at the third pivot point (col. 8: 53-56), wherein the first section is substantially parallel to the second section in the expanded configuration (figs. 1-2).
Claim 9- Tang discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 6, wherein the first section and the second section define respective apertures (167) configured to receive therethrough respective fasteners (171) to secure the first section and the second section to the respective first and second side linkages when in the expanded configuration (the ends B of each section comprise a coupler 166 having the aperture 167, wherein the upper ends 171 of each side linkage element 28/30 is a fastener because it functions to secure each end B to the side linkages).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by von Hoffman (US 4775182).
Claim 1- von Hoffman discloses a recliner mechanism of a recliner (the open/use position of the chair having a reclined backrest, fig. 4, meets the limitation “recliner”), the mechanism comprising:
a first side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (6, 4), the plurality of interconnected links including a first seat deck link (6) configured to couple to a seat deck (3) of the recliner and a first back rest link (4) configured to couple to a back rest (2) of the recliner;
a second side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (7, 5), the plurality of interconnected links including a second seat deck link (7) configured to couple to the seat deck (3) of the recliner and a second back rest link (5) configured to couple to the back rest of the recliner; and
at least one support member (intermediate braces shown in figs. 3-6) having a first end (left end) coupled to the first side linkage and a second end (right end) coupled to the second side linkage, wherein the first side linkage is movable relative to the second side linkage from a collapsed configuration (figs. 2, 11) to an expanded configuration (figs. 1, 3-4).
Claim 6- von Hoffman discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one support member comprises a hinged tube (braces 15 & 16 are structurally capable of functioning as the recited tube) comprising: a first section (15) coupled to the first side linkage at a first pivot point (col. 5: 13-16); and a second section (16) coupled the second side linkage at the second pivot point (col. 5: 17-19); and a hinge section (col. 5: 21-22) comprising a third pivot point (17), wherein the first section (15) is movably coupled to the second section (15) at the third pivot point (fig. 5), wherein the first section is substantially parallel to the second section in the expanded configuration.
Claim 7- von Hoffman discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 6, wherein the hinge section further comprises a detent (17a) is configured to resist movement of the first section (15) and the second section (16) from the expanded configuration toward the collapsed configuration (col. 5: 21-24).
Claim 8- von Hoffman discloses the recliner mechanism of claim 6, wherein the hinge section further comprises a stop tab (17a) extending from at least a portion of the first section and configured to contact at least a portion (notch) of the second section when in the expanded configuration (col. 5: 21-32).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (US 4889383).
Claim 1- Jones discloses a recliner mechanism of a recliner (the chair reclines about hinges 20 & 21), comprising:
a first side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (32, 44), the plurality of interconnected links including a first seat deck link (44) configured to couple to a seat deck of the recliner and a first back rest link (32) configured to couple to a back rest of the recliner;
a second side linkage comprising a plurality of pivotally interconnected links (32, 44), the plurality of interconnected links including a second seat deck link (44) configured to couple to the seat deck of the recliner and a second back rest link (32) configured to couple to the back rest of the recliner; and
at least one support member (52, 54) having a first end coupled to the first side linkage and a second end coupled to the second side linkage, wherein the first side linkage is movable relative to the second side linkage (col. 4: 10-13) from a collapsed configuration (fig. 2) to an expanded configuration (fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-22 are allowed.
Claims 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record did not show or suggest, either singly or combined, a recliner mechanism for a recliner comprising the structure and structural cooperative relationships as set forth in claims 10, 14, 17 and 20; wherein the pair of opposing side linkage assemblies are interconnected by at least one telescoping tube to yield a collapsed configuration with a transverse distance that is less than a transverse distance of an expanded configuration; or wherein the pair of opposing side linkage assemblies are pivotally interconnected by at least one telescoping tube to yield a collapsing function comprising the pivoting of one side linkage inward toward the opposing side linkage about respective pivot couplings such that the planar distance of the linkages in an expanded configuration is greater than the planar distance in a collapsed configuration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
