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 with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan Johnson in Article, 45 Genius Solutions To Everyday Problems We Can All Appreciate, Brilliant inventions making solving everyday problems, published by eBAUM's WORLD in 2017 (45 Genius Solutions To Everyday Problems We Can All Appreciate eBaum's World) in view of Crump (846,910).
Regarding claim 1, Nathan discloses seating comprising a back portion extending substantially upwardly from a seat portion, the back portion comprising at least one indentation, each indentation being positioned relative to an upper edge of the back portion to permit an elongated portion of an object to be seated within the indentation to hang against or over the back portion of the seating (see item 29, restaurant uses chairs that have purse/bag holders which includes a seat with back, and indentation that hold a strap of bag).
However, Nathan fails to disclose a contour of the indentation comprises a sloped portion towards an interior of the back portion and a side wall towards a side edge of the back portion.
Instead, Crump discloses a contour of the indentation comprises a sloped portion towards an interior of the back portion and a side wall towards a side edge of the back portion (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 Crump and use the indentation shape in the invention of Nathan for the purpose of preventing any accident or damages.
Regarding claim 2, Nathan discloses each indentation is positioned towards a corner of the back portion.
Regarding claims 3-7, 13, Leblanc et al. disclose a sloped portion that extends inwardly from the upper edge of the back portion towards a bottom of the indentation, wherein the bottom transitions to the side wall, wherein the side wall is substantially perpendicular relative to the upper edge, wherein the sloped inner portion is concave, wherein the bottom is substantially flat and parallel to the upper edge, wherein the upper edge is curved, the side wall provides a sharper edge than the sloped portion (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 Crump and use the indentation shape in the invention of Nathan for the purpose of preventing any accident or damages.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 8, Nathan fails to disclose a pair of indentations, each being positioned towards an opposing corner of the back portion of the seating.
However, it appears the limitations is just mere duplications of the first indentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to any number of indentations to mount multiple items with low cost, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Nathan discloses the seating is a chair.
Regarding claim 11, Nathan fails to disclose the seating is a bench.
However, Nathan has no limitations that prevents from using the indentation on a bench. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use a seating bench in order to seat multiple uses, 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.
Furthermore, Nathan discloses all the structural components. Therefore, Nathan’s invention is well capable of functioning as bench.
Regarding claim 12, Nathan discloses a set of legs, the seat portion being secured atop the set of legs.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan in view of Crump as applied in claim 9 above, and further in view of Rheault (US 2023/0070268).
Regarding claim 10, Rheault discloses the chair comprises a hand hold aperture 18 in the back portion, the aperture being substantially centered along the back portion.
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 and use the central seat back aperture in the invention of Nathan in order to attach multiple items with low cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
