October 6, 2026
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 .
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 “pins and tails” in Claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In the specification, Applicant describes that “…..the first and second connectors 120a,b may include complementary mating features, such as alternating pins and tails provided on the first connector 120a and complementary pins and tails provided on the second connector 120b.” However, the “pins and tails” are not labeled or provided with reference numbers. 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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3, Applicant claims that “the first connector comprises alternating pins and tails and the second connector comprises alternating pins and tails complementary to the first connector.” However, the “pins and tails” are not shown or at least are not labeled in the drawings for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what they are and how he “pins and tails” and their interconnection to the first and second connectors and how the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion with the use of the “pins and tails”.
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, 6-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinman (U.S. Patent No. 12,053,091 B1) in view of Berenson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,486,083 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
160
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
180
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Steinman teaches the structure substantially as claimed including a pool chair system comprising: a molded back portion having a first internal cavity 24; a molded leg portion having a second internal cavity 24;
wherein each of the first internal cavity and the second internal cavity have an open inlet 26, 26 and an open outlet 28,28, wherein the outlet 28,28 is at a higher elevation than the corresponding inlet 26,26, and
wherein, as the pool chair is at least partially submerged, each outlet 28,28 is configured to release air as water enters a corresponding cavity through the inlet 26,26 but does not teach that the molded back portion has a first connector and that the molded leg portion has a second connector; wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
214
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Berenson et al. teach the concept of a modular pool chair system comprising a molded back portion having a first connector 64 and that the molded leg portion having a second connector 62; wherein the first connector 64 and the second connector 62 are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool chair system, as taught by Steinman, to include a molded back portion having a first connector and a molded leg portion having a second connector; wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion, as taught by Berenson et al., since it would create a pool chair system having back portion and leg portion that are detachably connected to one another which would allow the back portion to be folded over the leg portion or would allow the pool chair to be disassembled, either scenarios allowing the pool chair system to be stored in a more compact condition when not in use. The combination would also allow each of the molded back portion and the molded leg portion are separately fillable with water through their respective inlets, as defi8ned in Claim 7
As for Claim 6, Steinman teaches that each inlet and each outlet is a hole through a surface of the molded back portion or molded leg portion.
As for Claim 9, Steinman teaches that the inlet of the first internal cavity is located in a foot of the molded back portion.
As for Claim 10, Steinman teaches the inlet of the second internal cavity is located in a foot of the molded leg portion.
As for Claim 11, Steinman teaches that the outlet of the first internal cavity is located at a top of a back surface of the molded back portion.
As for Claim 12, Steinman teaches that the outlet of the second internal cavity is located on a bottom surface of the molded leg portion at a peak of a knee bend.
As for Claim 14, Steinman teaches that each inlet and each outlet is always open.
As for Claims 16-17, Steinman teaches that the molded chair portion is a chair back; wherein the molded chair component is a leg rest.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinman (U.S. Patent No. 12,053,091 B1) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent No. 6,189,973 B1) or Arnold, IV et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,567,867 B2).
Steinman teaches the structure substantially as claimed (see the above 103 Rejection of Steinman (U.S. Patent No. 12,053,091 B1) in view of Berenson et al.) but does not teach that the molded back portion has a first connector and that the molded leg portion has a second connector; wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
218
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
218
326
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
196
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Wu and Arnold, IV et al. teach the concept of a molded back portion having a first connector and a seat portion having a second connector; wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion. Both Wu and Arnold, IV et al. also teach first and second connectors that are various dovetail joints used to connect a back portion of a chair to a seat portion of the chair. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool chair system, as taught by Steinman, to include a molded back portion having a first connector and a molded leg portion having a second connector; wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to interlock without the use of tools to secure the molded back portion to the molded leg portion, as taught by Wu or Arnold, IV et al., since it would create a pool chair system having back portion and leg portion that are detachably connected to one another which would allow the back portion to be folded over the leg portion or would allow the back portion to be detachably connected to the leg portion and resulting in a pool chair that can be disassembled, with either scenario allowing the pool chair system to be stored in a more compact condition when not in use. The combination would also allow each of the molded back portion and the molded leg portion are separately fillable with water through their respective inlets, as defi8ned in Claim 7
As for Claim 6, Steinman teaches that each inlet and each outlet is a hole through a surface of the molded back portion or molded leg portion.
As for Claim 9, Steinman teaches that the inlet of the first internal cavity is located in a foot of the molded back portion.
As for Claim 10, Steinman teaches that the inlet of the second internal cavity is located in a foot of the molded leg portion.
As for Claim 11, Steinman teaches that the outlet of the first internal cavity is located at a top of a back surface of the molded back portion.
As for Claim 12, Steinman teaches that the outlet of the second internal cavity is located on a bottom surface of the molded leg portion at a peak of a knee bend.
As for Claim 14, Steinman teaches that each inlet and each outlet is always open.
As for Claims 16-17, Steinman teaches that the molded chair portion is a chair back; wherein the molded chair component is a leg rest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
