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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “three front supporting bars and three rear supporting bars, and the seven pairs of crossing bars” of claim 19 as well as the “four front supporting bars and four rear supporting bars, and the ten pairs of crossing bars” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 152 in figures 1 and 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 19, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the foldable seat frame includes "three front supporting bars", "three rear supporting bars", and "seven pairs" of crossing bars. Paragraph [0064] of the specification explains that the seven crossing-bar pairs are each disposed between two adjacent supporting bars. The specification does not disclose enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the frame having three front and three rear supporting bars, a crossing bar pair between two adjacent supporting bars, while having seven total pairs of crossing bars. Such a structure is not possible because if there are six total supporting bars, only six crossing bar pairs can be disposed between adjacent supporting bars. The state of the art at the time of filing shows that constructing such a frame was not predictable. The specification does not provide direction as to how to construct such a frame. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the frame of claim 19.
In claim 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the foldable seat frame includes "four front supporting bars", "four rear supporting bars", and "ten pairs" of crossing bars. Paragraph [0064] of the specification explains that the ten crossing-bar pairs are each disposed between two adjacent supporting bars. The specification does not disclose enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the frame having four front and four rear supporting bars, a crossing bar pair between two adjacent supporting bars, while having ten total pairs of crossing bars. Such a structure is not possible because if there are eight total supporting bars, only eight crossing bar pairs can be disposed between adjacent supporting bars. The state of the art at the time of filing shows that constructing such a frame was not predictable. The specification does not provide direction as to how to construct such a frame. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the frame of claim 20.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recited features “enhancing stability,” “enhancing ease of use and installation,” “improving durability,” and “reducing folded size” are stated as intended results or advantages, rather than as clear structural or functional limitations. The scope of what constitutes “enhancing” or “improving” these characteristics is unclear and subjective. For example, “ease of use” and “durability” are dependent on the perspective or experience of individual users and may differ from person to person, providing no objective standard by which to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. The claim does not recite any objective structure or measurable criteria by which one could determine whether the claimed invention actually achieves the stated benefits. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how the upper connectors of both the first and the second supporting bar each have an upper connecting surface facing the second crossing bar. For examination purposes, “the second crossing bar” in line 3 on page 3 of the claims is interpreted as intended to be “the first crossing bar”.
Also, regarding claim 5, the recited features “enhancing stability,” “enhancing ease of use and installation,” “improving durability,” and “reducing folded size” are stated as intended results or advantages, rather than as clear structural or functional limitations. The scope of what constitutes “enhancing” or “improving” these characteristics is unclear and subjective. For example, “ease of use” and “durability” are dependent on the perspective or experience of individual users and may differ from person to person, providing no objective standard by which to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. The claim does not recite any objective structure or measurable criteria by which one could determine whether the claimed invention actually achieves the stated benefits. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if “a pair of crossing bars” in line 6, and “another pair of crossing bars” in line 9, are part of the “plurality of pairs of crossing bars” or entirely different pairs of crossing bars altogether.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, at two different instances within the claim, the recited features “enhancing stability,” “enhancing ease of use and installation,” “improving durability,” and “reducing folded size” are stated as intended results or advantages, rather than as clear structural or functional limitations. The scope of what constitutes “enhancing” or “improving” these characteristics is unclear and subjective. For example, “ease of use” and “durability” are dependent on the perspective or experience of individual users and may differ from person to person, providing no objective standard by which to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. The claim does not recite any objective structure or measurable criteria by which one could determine whether the claimed invention actually achieves the stated benefits. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claims 15-20 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 14.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haury (US-7669881-B2) in view of Huang (CN-203828453-U).
Haury discloses a folding transport chair. Huang discloses a folding leisure chair.
Claim 1 – Haury teaches a foldable seat frame comprising:
a plurality of supporting bars comprising:
a pair of front supporting bars (elements 119 and 120 in figure 7) disposed at a front side of the foldable seat frame when the foldable seat frame is unfolded (figure 7), wherein each front supporting bar in the pair of front supporting bars has a first length adjustable between an expanded length and a contracted length (figure 7); and
a pair of rear supporting bars (elements 121 and 122 in figure 7) disposed at a rear side of the foldable seat frame when the foldable seat frame is unfolded (figure 7), wherein each rear supporting bar in the pair of rear supporting bars has a second length equal to or greater than the first length (figure 7);
a plurality of lower connectors, each disposed at a lower end portion of a supporting bar in the plurality of supporting bars (element 140 in figure 7);
a plurality of upper connectors, each disposed at a supporting bar in the plurality of supporting bars above the lower end portion thereof (element 150 in figure 7), wherein the plurality of upper connectors comprises:
a pair of front upper connectors (element 150 in figure 7), each disposed at an upper end portion of a front supporting bar in the pair of front supporting bars (figure 7); and
a pair of rear upper connectors (element 150 in figure 7), each disposed at a rear supporting bar in the pair of rear supporting bars and movable along the rear supporting bar (figure 7); and
a plurality of pairs of crossing bars (elements 111-118 in figure 7), each comprising a first crossing bar (elements 111, 113, 115, and 117 in figure 7) and a second crossing bar (elements 112, 114, 116, 118 in figure 7) pivotally coupled to each other at middle portions thereof and disposed between two adjacent supporting bars in the plurality of supporting bars (figure 7), wherein:
for each pair in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars, each of the first and second crossing bars has a lower end portion pivotally connected to the lower connector disposed at one of the two adjacent supporting bars (figure 7) and an upper end portion pivotally connected to the upper connector disposed at the other of the two adjacent supporting bars (figure 7).
Haury teaches one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars but does not teach each of the first and second crossing bars has a substantially flat bar surface.
Huang teaches each of the first and second crossing bars has a substantially flat bar surface (element 11 in figures 5 and 6).
Huang states in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the provided translation, regarding the advantages of flat tubing, “reducing material, provides cost savings and has realized economic benefit”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Haury with the flat bar tubing in place of the round bar tubing of the crossing bars to reduce material, provide cost savings, and provide an economic benefit.
Claim 2 – Haury teaches a first pair in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars (elements 11 and 112 in figure 7) is disposed between the pair of front supporting bars (figure 7);
a first bar extension (element 1110 in figure 7) is connected to or integrally formed with the upper end portion of the first crossing bar of the first pair (elements 111 in figure 7), the first bar extension extending upward, outward, or upward and outward beyond the upper connector disposed at a first front supporting bar in the pair of front supporting bars when the foldable seat frame is unfolded (upward and outward beyond the upper connector, figure 7); and
a second bar extension (element 1120 in figure 7) is connected to or integrally formed with the upper end portion of the second crossing bar of the first pair (element 112 in figure 7), extending upward, outward, or upward and outward, beyond the upper connector disposed at a second front supporting bar in the pair of front supporting bars when the foldable seat frame is unfolded (upward and outward beyond the upper connector, figure 7).
Claims 3 and 15 – Haury does not teach the plurality of pairs of crossing bars as being a substantially flat bar.
Huang teaches for each of the one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars, the substantially flat bar surface of each of the first and second crossing bars extends across substantially an entire length of the first or second crossing bar (element 11 in figure 5).
Huang states in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the provided translation, regarding the advantages of flat tubing, “reducing material, provides cost savings and has realized economic benefit”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Haury with the flat bar tubing in place of the round bar tubing of the crossing bars to reduce material, provide cost savings, and provide an economic benefit.
Claims 4 and 16 – Haury does not teach the cross section of the plurality of pairs of crossing bars as being substantially D-shaped.
Huang teaches for each of the one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars, each of the first and second crossing bars has a substantially D-shaped cross section (the D-shaped cross section of Huang’s flat bars can best be seen in the profile of the lower connector in figure 9).
Huang states in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the provided translation, regarding the advantages of flat tubing, “reducing material, provides cost savings and has realized economic benefit”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Haury with the flat bar tubing in place of the round bar tubing of the crossing bars to reduce material, provide cost savings, and provide an economic benefit.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Claim 5 – Haury teaches corresponding to each of the one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars:
the lower connector (element B in Image 1 above) disposed at a first supporting bar (element 120 in Image 1 above) in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a first lower connecting surface facing the first crossing bar (element 111 in Image 1 above);
the lower connector (element A in Image 1 above) disposed at a second supporting bar (element 119 in Image 1 above) in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a second lower connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (element 112 in Image 1 above);
the upper connector (element D in Image 1 above) disposed at the first supporting bar in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a first upper connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (Image 1 above);
the upper connector (element C in Image 1 above) disposed at the second supporting bar in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a second upper connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (Image 1 above); and
each of the first lower connecting surface, the second lower connecting surface, the first upper connecting surface and the second upper connecting surface are substantially flat (figure 24B gives a closer look as the lower connecting surfaces, element 1500, being flat, and, while the upper connecting surfaces are not shown as closely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper connecting surfaces also be flat in the same way).
Haury does not teach the crossing bars as being substantially flat surfaced.
Huang teaches each crossing bar is substantially flat surfaces (element 11 in figures 5 and 6).
Huang states in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the provided translation, regarding the advantages of flat tubing, “reducing material, provides cost savings and has realized economic benefit”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Haury with the flat bar tubing in place of the round bar tubing of the crossing bars to reduce material, provide cost savings, and provide an economic benefit.
Claims 6 and 17 – Haury teaches the one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars comprise each of the plurality of pairs of crossing bars (figure 7).
Claim 7 – Haury teaches a respective lower connector in the plurality of lower connectors comprises:
a first connecting member connected to the lower end portion of a corresponding supporting bar in the plurality of supporting bars (element 1401 in figure 24B);
a second connecting member pivotally connected to the lower end portion of a crossing bar in a pair of crossing bars that is disposed at a first side of the corresponding supporting bar (a pair of side walls, element 1500, in figures 24 24B is a second connecting member); and
a third connecting member pivotally connected to the lower end portion of a crossing bar in another pair of crossing bars that is disposed at a second side of the corresponding supporting bar (the remaining pair of side walls, element 1500, in figure 24B is a third connecting member).
Claim 8 – Haury teaches the first connecting member of the respective lower connector and the lower end portion of the corresponding supporting bar are connected to each other by snap-fitting or interference-fitting (element 1401 in figure 24B is taught by Haury as a “bore” in column 10, lines 56-57 of the disclosure, a bore being interference-fitting).
Claim 9 – Haury teaches the first connecting member of the respective lower connector is in a form of a socket for receiving the lower end portion of the corresponding supporting bar (Merriam-Webster defines a socket as “an opening or hollow that forms a holder for something”, which element 1401 in figure 24B teaches).
Claim 10 – Haury teaches a first coupling member is disposed in the socket (element 1403 in figure 24B) and configured to couple with a second coupling member disposed at the lower end portion of the corresponding supporting bar (element 1403 in figure 24B couples with the bottom surface, disposed at the lower end portion, of the corresponding supporting bar).
Claim 11 – Haury does not teach the first connecting member of the respective lower connector and the lower end portion of the corresponding supporting bar have matching non-circular cross sections to prevent rotation of the respective lower connector relative to the corresponding supporting bar.
Huang teaches the cross bars are flat bar (element 11 in figures 5 and 6).
While Huang does not specifically teach the supporting bars as being flat bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Haury’s circular tubing with the flat bar of Huang, to modify all circular tubing rather than just some of the circular tubing, which includes the supporting bars.
Claim 12 – Haury does not teach the matching non-circular cross sections are substantially D-shaped.
Huang teaches the cross section of the cross bars are substantially D-shaped (the D-shaped cross section of Huang’s flat bars can best be seen in the profile of the lower connector in figure 9).
While Huang does not specifically teach the supporting bars as being flat bar, and their cross sections as being substantially D-shaped, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Haury’s circular tubing with the flat bar of Huang, to modify all circular tubing rather than just some of the circular tubing, which includes the supporting bars.
Claim 13 – Haury teaches the respective lower connector further comprises a base member, wherein the first, second and third connecting members extend from the base member in a direction substantially perpendicular to the base member (element 1132 in figure 7).
Claim 14 – Haury teaches a foldable seat frame comprising:
a plurality of supporting bars (elements 119-122 in figure 7);
a plurality of lower connectors, each disposed at a lower end portion of a supporting bar in the plurality of supporting bars (element 140 in figure 7);
a plurality of upper connectors, each disposed at a supporting bar in the plurality of supporting bars above a lower end portion thereof (element 150 in figure 7); and
a plurality of pairs of crossing bars (elements 111-118 in figure 7), each comprising a first crossing bar (elements 111, 113, 115, and 117 in figure 7) and a second crossing bar (elements 112, 114, 116, 118 in figure 7)pivotally coupled to each other at middle portions thereof and disposed between two adjacent supporting bars in the plurality of supporting bars (figure 7), wherein:
for each pair in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars, each of the first and second crossing bars has a lower end portion pivotally connected to the lower connector disposed at one of the two adjacent supporting bars (figure 7) and an upper end portion pivotally connected to the upper connector disposed at the other of the two adjacent supporting bars (figure 7); and
corresponding to each of the one or more pairs in the plurality of pairs of crossing bars:
the lower connector (element B in Image 1 above) disposed at a first supporting bar (element 120 in Image 1 above) in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a first lower connecting surface facing the first crossing bar (element 111 in Image 1 above);
the lower connector (element A in Image 1 above) disposed at a second supporting bar (element 119 in Image 1 above) in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a second lower connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (element 112 in Image 1 above);
the upper connector (element D in Image 1 above) disposed at the first supporting bar in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a first upper connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (Image 1 above);
the upper connector (element C in Image 1 above) disposed at the second supporting bar in the two adjacent supporting bars comprises a second upper connecting surface facing the second crossing bar (Image 1 above); and
each of the first lower connecting surface, the second lower connecting surface, the first upper connecting surface and the second upper connecting surface are substantially flat (figure 24B gives a closer look as the lower connecting surfaces, element 1500, being flat, and, while the upper connecting surfaces are not shown as closely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper connecting surfaces also be flat in the same way).
Haury does not teach the crossing bars as being substantially flat surfaced.
Huang teaches each crossing bar is substantially flat surfaces (element 11 in figures 5 and 6).
Huang states in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the provided translation, regarding the advantages of flat tubing, “reducing material, provides cost savings and has realized economic benefit”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Haury with the flat bar tubing in place of the round bar tubing of the crossing bars to reduce material, provide cost savings, and provide an economic benefit.
Claim 18 – Haury teaches the plurality of supporting bars comprises two front supporting bars (elements 119 and 120 in figure 7) and two rear supporting bars (elements 121 and 122 in figure 7);
the plurality of pairs of crossing bars comprises four pairs (element pairs 111-112, 113-114, 115-116, and 117-118 in figure 7); and
when the foldable seat frame is unfolded, the two front supporting bars are disposed at a front side of the foldable seat frame and the two rear supporting bars are disposed at a rear side of the foldable seat frame (figure 7).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haury (US-7669881-B2) in view of Huang (CN-203828453-U), further in view of Holland (WO-2020044038-A1).
Holland discloses a collapsible bench.
Claims 19-20 – Haury teaches the plurality of supporting bars (elements 119-122 in figure 7), the plurality of pairs of crossing bars (elements 111-118 in figure 7), and, when the foldable seat frame is unfolded, the supporting bars are disposed at a front side of the foldable seat frame and the rear supporting bars are disposed at a rear side of the foldable seat frame (figure 7). Haury does not teach the number of front and rear supporting bars being three or four and does not teach the number of pairs of crossing bars being seven or ten.
Holland teaches the number of front and rear supporting bars being greater than two, including three or four, and teaches the number of pairs of crossing bars being greater than four, including seven or ten (figure 1).
Holland teaches increasing the amount of front and rear supporting bars and pairs of crossing bars to allow more people to sit. In paragraph 14, Holland states “the sitting surface may provide space for at least one person to sit, such as at least two, at least three, at least four or at least five people to sit”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of Haury’s figure 7 in the manner taught by Holland to have a foldable bench-styled seating arrangement for more than one person to sit at a time.
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