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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I, figures 1-3 and 8-9;
Species II, figures 4-7, and 16a-22;
Species III, figures 10-11;
Species IV, figures 12-15.
The species are independent or distinct because Species I is for a unit with four joints, Species II is for a unit with a spring element, Species III is for a unit with a pinned hinge, and Species IV is for a unit with internal locking and limiting mechanisms. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason applies: Species I-IV comprise different technical features that would each require different search consideration.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Richter on June 3, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-5, 7, and 15-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6 and 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, regarding the three joints, “all of which are solid-body joints” is redundant as claim 15 already states that the at least three joints are solid-body joints. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto (JP-2013132403-A).
Hashimoto discloses a chair utilizing elastic deformation to allow for movement.
Claim 1 – Hashimoto teaches a central unit (element 3 in figure 8) for a chair (element 1 in figure 8), comprising a multi-joint body that comprises:
a seat part (element 381 in figure 8) configured for connection to a seat (element 4 in figure 8),
a backrest part (element 371 in figure 8) configured for connection to a backrest (element 5 in figure 8),
a support part (element 31 in figure 8) configured for connection to a support of a base (element 22 in figure 8), and
a front part (element 34 in figure 8) arranged between the seat part and the support part (figure 8),
wherein the multi-joint body comprises at least three joints (element 112 at various locations, as well as element 382, in figure 8) which each connect two of the specified parts in an articulated manner (figure 8).
Claim 2 – Hashimoto teaches at least one of the joints is a solid-body joint (figure 8).
Claim 3 – Hashimoto teaches the at least one solid-body joint is formed in one piece with the parts connected by the at least one solid-body joint (figure 8).
Claim 4 – Hashimoto teaches the multi-joint body is formed in one piece (figure 8).
Claim 7 – Hashimoto teaches the front part is designed to be flexurally elastic (in figure 8, each of the element 112 joints includes an elastomer element 12, making the element 34 front part flexurally elastic).
Claim 15 – Hashimoto teaches the at least three joints are solid-body joints (figure 8).
Claim 18 – Hashimoto teaches a chair having the central unit (element 1 in figure 8).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP--2013132403-A) in view of Ludwig (WO-2016168185-A1).
Claim 5 – Hashimoto does not teach the material composition of the multi-joint body. Ludwig teaches the multi-joint body (elements 22 and 26 in figure 2) is made of plastics material (in paragraph [0074], when discussing potential suitable materials for the multi-joint body, elements 22 and 26, Ludwig states “other suitable materials may also be utilized, such as metals…; or composite material including plastics”). Ludwig teaches that, at the time of invention, plastic was a material known to the art as suitable for the construction of the multi-joint body. A specific material for the multi-joint body of Hashimoto is not disclosed, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto with the plastic material taught by Ludwig since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP-2013132403-A) alone.
Claims 16 and 17 – Hashimoto teaches all of the joints are solid-body joints (figure 8), and that the front part is flexurally elastic (in figure 8, each of the element 112 joints includes an elastomer element 12, making the element 34 front part flexurally elastic). Hashimoto does not teach the at least three joints consist of exactly three joints, and Hashimoto does not teach the at least three joints consist of exactly four joints.
Hashimoto teaches more than three joints in figure 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the multi-joint body with exactly three joints, or exactly 4 joints, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM EST.
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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights