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 .
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 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, in line 32 of each, the claim requires that the lumbar support be “automatically moved to a position which will provide a user with a maximum degree of comfort.” The term “maximum degree of comfort” is inherently subjective as the “degree of comfort” will vary from user to user, depending on individual anatomy, preferences, and perceptions. As such, the claim does not provide objective boundaries or criteria by which one of ordinary skill in the art can determine whether a particular structure meets or does not meet the limitation.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Claims 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 11.
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
In lines 8-9, also require the lumbar support provide the user with a “maximum degree of comfort”. See above rejection of claims 1 and 11; and
In lines 3-4, the “three plates of said lumbar support” are stated to be “angularly oriented with respect to each other”, whereas in claims 1 and 11, it is stated that the “opposite end plates are angled with respect to a central plate”. There is a change in meaning between “angularly oriented with respect to each other” and “opposite end plates are angled with respect to a central plate” that leads to a lack of clarity as to what exactly each plate needs to be angled with respect to.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, in line 4 of claim 9 and line 3 of claim 19, it is unclear if both motor ends are to comprise one of or both of a “lug” and an “ear”.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claims 9 and 19.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, in lines 3 and 5-6 of claim 10 and lines 2 and 4-5 in claim 20, it is unclear if the grooves are to be both “annular” and “peripheral” or just “annular” or just “peripheral”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US-20170360201-A1) in view of Ma (US-10888169-B1).
Brown discloses a seatback for an article of adjustable furniture. Ma discloses an electric sofa frame.
Claims 1 and 11 – Brown teaches a powered chair having a headrest and lumbar support system incorporated therein (figure 17), comprising:
at least one headrest mounting bracket (elements 28 and 30 in figure 1) for mounting a headrest (element 14 in figure 1) thereon;
a first lumbar support mounting bracket (element 20 in figure 4), for fixing a lumbar support thereon (figure 8), operatively connected to said at least one headrest mounting bracket (figure 1);
said lumbar support comprises three plates (element 90 in figure 16) which are fixed with respect to each other in such a manner that opposite end plates are angled with respect to a central plate such that said lumbar support has a substantially U-shaped configuration (element 90 in figure 16 is described in paragraph [0071] as “the lumbar support panel 90 has an approximate convex outward facing surface comprising three angular sections which are joined together”);
a second lumbar support mounting bracket (element 84 in figure 8) wherein said lumbar support is fixedly connected to a first end of said second lumbar support mounting bracket (via element 88 in figure 12) while a second end of said second lumbar support mounting bracket is movably connected to said first lumbar support mounting bracket (figure 8);
a first linear actuator (element 38 in figure 3) operatively connected to said at least one headrest mounting bracket for moving said at least one headrest mounting bracket between a fully extended position (figure 3) and a fully retracted position (figure 6); and
a second linear actuator (element 38’ in figure 8) operatively connected to said lumbar support for moving said lumbar support between a fully extended position (figure 17) and a fully retracted position (figure 15).
Brown does not teach an arcuate slot defined within said first lumbar support mounting bracket, with a second end of said second lumbar support mounting bracket movably connected to it; and
wherein said lumbar support is pivotally mounted upon said first lumbar support mounting bracket as a result of said second end of said second lumbar support mounting bracket being movably connected to said arcuate slot defined within said first lumbar support mounting bracket such that when said second linear actuator moves said lumbar support mounting bracket to a fully extended position, a fully retracted position, and any position between said fully extended and said fully retracted positions, said lumbar support will automatically be moved to a position which will provide a user with a maximum degree of comfort as a result of a lumbar region of the user engaging said lumbar support and automatically moving said lumbar support to said position.
Ma teaches an arcuate slot (element 841 in figure 2) defined within a first lumbar support mounting bracket (element 84 in figure 2); and
that when said second linear actuator moves said lumbar support mounting bracket to a fully extended position, a fully retracted position, and any position between said fully extended and said fully retracted positions, said lumbar support will automatically be moved to a position which will provide a user with a maximum degree of comfort as a result of a lumbar region of the user engaging said lumbar support and automatically moving said lumbar support to said position (“the rotation of the first protruding post 851 can drive the first support 84 to rotate, until the second driving electric motor 81 drives the waistrest assembly to a desired angle” in column 5, lines 12-15).
Brown teaches a very limited motion. In Brown’s disclosure, it appears as though the lumbar support pivots at a single point, which means that as the lumbar support rotates, it meets the users back at an upwards angle rather than moving forward into, and supporting, the user’s back. Ma’s teaching of an arcuate groove is preferable as it allows the lumbar support to move forward as it rotates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown’s disclosure with the arcuate slot of Ma. Ma also teaches providing a range of positions between fully extended and fully retracted as “a desired angle”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the user of Brown’s disclosure with a range of positions between fully extended and fully retracted to allow the user to find their maximum degree of comfort.
Claims 2 and 12 – Brown teaches said at least one headrest mounting bracket for mounting a headrest thereon comprises a pair of oppositely disposed headrest mounting brackets (element 28 in figure 1).
Claims 3 and 13 – Brown teaches said first and second linear actuators are oriented in opposite directions when incorporated into said headrest and lumbar support system (figure 18).
Claims 4 and 14 – Brown teaches said first and second linear actuators have motor ends mounted upon a common linear actuator motor mounting bar (element 18 in figure 16).
Claims 6 and 16 – Brown teaches said three plates of said lumbar support are integrally connected together (element 90 in figure 16 is described in paragraph [0071] as “the lumbar support panel 90 has an approximate convex outward facing surface comprising three angular sections which are joined together”).
Claims 8 and 18 – Brown teaches the lumbar support being three plates, angularly oriented with respect to each other, and said fully extended and said fully retracted positions (see rejection of claims 1 and 11 above), but Brown does not teach the lumbar support will automatically be moved to said any position between said fully extended and said fully retracted positions, which will provide a user with said maximum degree of comfort as a result of a lumbar region of the user engaging at least one of said three plates of said lumbar support.
Ma teaches the lumbar support will automatically be moved to said any position between said fully extended and said fully retracted positions, which will provide a user with said maximum degree of comfort as a result of a lumbar region of the user engaging at least one of said three plates of said lumbar support (“the rotation of the first protruding post 851 can drive the first support 84 to rotate, until the second driving electric motor 81 drives the waistrest assembly to a desired angle” in column 5, lines 12-15).
While Brown teaches the lumbar support the lumbar support plates, the fully extended position and the fully retracted position, Brown is silent on any position between fully extended and fully retracted to provide the user with said maximum degree of comfort. Ma teaches providing a range of positions between fully extended and fully retracted as “a desired angle”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the user of Brown’s disclosure with a range of positions between fully extended and fully retracted to allow the user to find their maximum degree of comfort.
Claims 9 and 19 – Brown teaches said motor ends of said first and second linear actuators comprise lugs/ears for mounting said motor ends of said first and second linear actuators upon said common linear actuator motor mounting bar (element 58 in figure 3 and element 58’ in figure 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 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.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 19, “lugs/ears” does not indicate that “ears” is merely an alternative description of “lugs”. The cited paragraph in the specification, paragraph [0022], states “the linear actuator motor mounting bar 110 is inserted through a pair of lugs or ears 168, 170”. This is the only reference in the specification to “lugs or ears”. The claim should be written in a manner similar to the specification, rather than separating the words with a slash. It should be noted that if the claims were rewritten as “said motor ends of said first and second linear actuators comprise lugs or ears” to better reflect the specification, it is not clear that the structures are alternative descriptions of the same element, and the only reference in the specification to the lugs and ears does not clarify that they are the same structure stated in two different ways.
Similarly, regarding the 112(b) rejection of claims 10 and 20, “annular/peripheral” does not indicate “peripheral” is merely an alternative description of “annular”. The cited paragraph in the specification, paragraph [0022], states “the linear actuator motor mounting bar 110 has a plurality of annular or peripheral grooves 164”. This is the only reference in the specification to “annular or peripheral”. The claim should be written in a manner similar to the specification, rather than separating the words with a slash. It should be noted that if the claims were rewritten as “a plurality of annular or peripheral grooves” to better reflect the specification, it is not clear that the structures are alternative descriptions of the same element, and the only reference in the specification to the grooves being annular or peripheral does not clarify that they are the same structure stated in two different ways.
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 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
