DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No 12,185,843 in view of Chen (CN 205432902U). Patent ‘843 shows all of the teachings of the claimed invention except the use of telescopic upper support rods. Chen teaches the use of a folding chair that has telescopic upper support rods (52) that are rotatably coupled at a middle portion to a corresponding support leg. (40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the folding chair of Patent ‘843 with the teachings of Chen in order to accommodate different occupant sizes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, applicant has disclosed that the upper hinge seat and lower hinge seat are directly connected as (via an intermediate member (or connection rod (16)) received within an insertion groove (133) of the lower hinge seat) but then recites that “the upper hinge seat and the lower hinge seat is not connected by other intermediate component” which renders the claim unclear and confusing as to how the upper and lower hinge seat can be directly connected without the intermediate member (16). Applicant needs to clarify the claim language, as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear and confusing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foshan (CN113425110A). Foshan shows the use of a folding chair having an unfold state and a folded state, comprising: an upper hinge seat (12); a plurality of support legs (11), each of the plurality of support legs having an upper end portion rotatably connected to the upper hinge seat and a lower end portion for supporting on the ground; a lower hinge seat (22), arranged below the upper hinge seat; and a plurality of upper support rods (21) including telescopic rods, each of the plurality of upper support rods having a lower end portion rotatably connected to the lower hinge seat; wherein, a middle portion of each support leg is rotatably connected with one of the plurality of upper support rods (see abstract); when the folding chair is in the unfolded state, lower end portions of the plurality of support legs are unfolded with respect to each other, upper end portions of the plurality of upper support rods are unfolded with respect to each other, and the upper hinge seat and the lower hinge seat are directly connected; when the folding chair is in the folded state, the lower end portions of the plurality of support legs are close to each other, the upper end portions of the plurality of upper support rods are close to each other, and the upper hinge seat and the lower hinge seat are kept away from each other (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, the upper hinge and lower hinge seats abut against each other when the chair is unfolded (upon the upper support rods being fully extended outwardly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has disclosed that the upper hinge seat and lower hinge seat are directly connected in the unfolded state via a connection rod (16)) received within an insertion groove (133) of the lower hinge seat) but then recites that “the upper hinge seat and the lower hinge seat is not connected by other intermediate component” which is unclear and confusing as the folding chair has a connection rod to connect the upper and lower hinge seat. The prior art reference Foshan shows a folding chair in the unfolded state that has an upper and lower hinge seat that are directly connected via a connection rod/intermediate member (4). Examiner maintains the position that so far as clearly defined by the claimed invention the folding chair as taught by Foshan anticipated the claimed invention.
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 ANTHONY D BARFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6852. 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. 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.
/ANTHONY D BARFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
adb
October 02, 2026
