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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite because as recited in claims 1 and 16, it is unclear how the seat mounting plate can be moved “independent of the position of the seating unit,” when the seating unit is defined as the entire device and its position is inherently determined by the orientation of the seat mounting plate. This internal inconsistency renders the scope of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Note that the “seating unit” as defined in the specification is the entire assembly, and thus its “position” is inherently related to the seat mounting plate. Applicant is required to clarify the intended meaning or amend the claim for definiteness.
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaPointe et al. (US 5,765,913 A).
Regarding claim 12, LaPointe et al. discloses: a glider seating unit having opposed sides (side walls 24, Figs. 1–2), a seat and a back (seat member 26, seat back 28, Fig. 1),
a stationary base (base 32, Fig. 1),
a seat plate coupled to the seat and supported by the base (seat deck 326, chair frame 22, Figs. 2, 15–16),
a glide and tilt assembly coupled between the base and the seat plate, operable to change the orientation of the seat plate and allowing a reciprocating motion of the seat and back (glide mechanism, universal glide bracket 330, four-bar linkage, Figs. 2, 15–18; tilt and glide described throughout).
Regarding claim 13, LaPointe et al. discloses the base comprising an arm mounting plate coupled to each of the opposed sides (see Figs. 1–2, side walls 24, mounting arrangement for arms, chair frame structure, described in col. 3, lines 35–45).
Regarding claim 14, LaPointe et al. discloses:
the glide and tilt assembly includes a front glide link having a top and a bottom, and a rear glide link having a top and a bottom (see Figs. 15–16, glide links 390, 392),
the top of the rear glide link is directly pivotally coupled to the arm mounting plate (see Fig. 16, rear glide link to side rail/arm plate),
the top of the front glide link is indirectly coupled to the arm mounting plate (see Fig. 16, front glide link via glide bracket).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPointe et al. (US 5,765,913 A) in view of Lawson (US 8,398,168 B2).
Regarding claim 1, LaPointe et al. (US 5,765,913 A) discloses a glider recliner seating unit moveable between closed, TV, and fully reclined positions, comprising:
a base (see Fig. 1, base 32);
a glide and tilt assembly coupled to the base (see Figs. 2, 15, glide mechanism, universal glide bracket 66- also seen in Figures 4-5, etc);
a linkage mechanism supported on the glide and tilt assembly, including a seat mounting plate (see claim 1, seat deck 326, chair frame 22);
the linkage mechanism configured to move the seating unit between closed, TV, and fully reclined positions (see Figs. 1–3, 10–11, 13–14);
the glide and tilt assembly allowing a reciprocating gliding motion of the seat mounting plate above the base at least when the recliner is in the closed position (see Figs. 2, 15–18, claims 1, 21).
However, LaPointe et al. does not disclose a powered actuator operable to change the orientation of the seat mounting plate independent of the position of the seating unit; LaPointe teaches manual operation via mechanical linkages and a drive rod (see col. 3, lines 47-50; Figs. 6–7).
Lawson discloses a glider-recliner-style seating unit powered by a linear actuator (see Abstract, claim 1), wherein: the powered actuator (linear actuator) is operable to change the orientation of the seat mounting plate (see claim 1, [0042], Figs. 4–8); the actuator is operable independently of the position of the seating unit, via a hand-held controller (see [0030], claim 1); the actuator facilitates automated adjustment between closed, TV, and fully reclined positions (see Abstract, [0008], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the manual linkage mechanism of LaPointe et al. to include the powered actuator system of Lawson, as Lawson expressly addresses the industry need to automate glider recliner mechanisms, and provides a compact, compatible solution for powered adjustment. The motivation to combine is found in the desire for improved convenience and user control, as well as the compatibility of powered actuators with glider recliner seating units.
Regarding claim 2, LaPointe et al. discloses a glide bracket coupled to the base (see Fig. 15, universal glide bracket 330), a linkage mechanism comprising a carrier link at least indirectly coupled to the seat mounting plate (see Fig. 16, carrier link), and the glide and tilt assembly coupled between the glide bracket and the carrier link (see Figs. 15–18).
Regarding claim 3, LaPointe et al. discloses a glide and tilt assembly including a front glide link having a top and a bottom, and a rear glide link having a top and a bottom, with the carrier link pivotally coupled to the bottom of the front and rear glide links (see Fig. 16, front and rear glide links 390, 392, carrier link).
Regarding claim 4, LaPointe et al. discloses that at least the top of the front glide link is indirectly coupled to the glide bracket (see Fig. 16, upper pivot connection between front glide link and glide bracket).
Regarding claim 5, LaPointe et al. discloses the top of the rear glide link also indirectly coupled to the glide bracket (see Fig. 16, upper pivot of rear glide link 392 to glide bracket 330).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, LaPointe et al. discloses a front glide lift link pivotally coupled to the glide bracket and coupled to the front glide link (see Fig. 16, linkage arrangement). However, LaPointe teaches manual actuation. Lawson teaches the use of a powered actuator operably coupled to the linkage to effect rotation and to independently increase the angular orientation of the seat mounting plate (see column 10, lines 20-40, claim 1, Figs. 4–8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to automate the front glide lift link as taught by Lawson, thereby allowing powered, independent seat angle adjustment.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lawson discloses that actuation of the powered actuator can increase the pitch of the seat plate by a variable amount, including within the range of zero to forty degrees (see column 10, lines 20-40, claim 8). Therefore, claim 7 is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 8, Lawson discloses that actuation of the powered actuator can tilt the seat plate to an angle relative to horizontal within the claimed range (column 10, lines 20-40). Therefore, claim 8 is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 9, LaPointe et al. and Lawson both disclose that actuation of the linkage mechanism can bring the tops of the front and rear glide links closer together, thereby lowering the amount of glide possible (see LaPointe Fig. 16, linkage geometry; Lawson column 10, lines 20-40, Figs. 5–8).
Regarding claim 10, Lawson teaches that actuation of the powered actuator can translate the linkage mechanism forwardly, moving the center of gravity forward (see column 10, lines 20-40; claim 16, Figs. 5–8). Therefore, claim 10 is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 11, LaPointe et al. and Lawson both disclose that the front glide lift link can be coupled to the rear glide link through a connector linkage (see LaPointe Fig. 16; Lawson column 10, lines 20-40, Figs. 5–8).
Regarding claim 15, LaPointe et al. is discussed above, but does not disclose a powered actuator. LaPointe teaches manual operation ( “A drive rod 50 having a handle 52 disposed on one end is suspended between the side walls 24 and provides means for selectively operating various comfort features functions of the glide chair.”).
Lawson discloses a powered actuator (linear actuator) coupled to the linkage mechanism and operable to move the glide and tilt assembly to change the orientation of the seat mounting plate (see Abstract, claim 1, Figs. 4–8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the manual glide and tilt actuation of LaPointe et al. to include a powered actuator as taught by Lawson, in order to provide automated and convenient adjustment of the seat orientation, as suggested by Lawson’s express motivation to automate such mechanisms for user convenience and improved functionality.
Regarding claim 16, LaPointe et al. (Figs. 1–3, 10–11, 15–18) discloses a powered glider recliner seating unit with a base, glide and tilt assembly, linkage mechanism including a seat mounting plate, and reciprocating gliding motion above the base in the closed position. See also discussion above regarding LaPointe.
LaPointe does not disclose a powered actuator operable to increase the angle of the seat mounting plate independent of the position, nor to translate the seat mounting plate forwardly as the angle increases.
Lawson (Abstract, Figs. 4–8, see also discussion above) teaches a powered actuator for independent angle adjustment and translation of the seat mounting plate.
It would have been obvious to modify LaPointe with Lawson’s powered actuator for automated angle and translation adjustment, as motivated by improved user convenience.
Regarding claim 17, LaPointe (Figs. 15–18) discloses a glide bracket coupled to the base, a linkage mechanism comprising a carrier link indirectly coupled to the seat mounting plate, and a glide and tilt assembly coupled between the glide bracket and carrier link.
Regarding claim 18, LaPointe (Figs. 15–16) discloses a glide and tilt assembly including front and rear glide links (having tops and bottoms), with the carrier link pivotally coupled to the bottom of the front glide link and the bottom of the rear glide link.
Regarding claim 19, LaPointe (Fig. 16) discloses the top of the front glide link and the top of the rear glide link indirectly coupled to the glide bracket.
Regarding claim 20, Lawson teaches that the powered actuator can adjust the pitch of the seat mounting plate to a user-selected angle (see abstract; Figs. 4–8), though Lawson does not specify a numerical range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a pitch adjustment range suitable for user comfort, such as between one and forty degrees, as this is a typical and predictable range for seat pitch in the art, and no criticality or unexpected result is alleged for the claimed range. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable over LaPointe in view of Lawson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA K THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
JESSICA K THOMPSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
