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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the IDS filed March 4, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed March 4, 2025 are approved.
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 12-14 and 16 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "their divided members" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “closing the lower part of the seat part and the rear surface of the backrest part” in line 7. This recitation is vague as previously only “at least one of a lower part of a seat part and a rear surface of a backrest part” (see line 3) was required to be open.
Claim 14 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "their divided members" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaRoche (US8844105).
Note a prefabricated chair capable of a minimal volume packaging comprising: a seat part (9; Figure 2) configured to be surrounded by a seating surface, a side part, and a lower part; a backrest part (2; Figure 2) having a cushion (4; Figure 4) inside, and configured to be surrounded by a backrest surface, a side surface, and a rear surface to support a user's back during use; and a plurality of chair components (A, B; Figure 6), wherein at least one of the lower part and the rear surface is configured to be openable (see element 5; Figure 4) and closable by a detachable member (zipper or hook-and-loop fasteners) to accommodate the plurality of chair components within an internal space of at least one of the seat part and the backrest part during packaging.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRoche (US8844105) in view of Durling (US5544943).
The primary reference shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the frame of the seat part being rectangular.
In the primary reference, note that the seat part (9) has a seat frame that is a quadrilateral.
The secondary reference conventionally teaches configuring a seat part frame as rectangular. Note the abstract.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice in design, to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to configure the seat part frame of the primary reference as a quadrilateral that is a rectangle. This modification provides an alternate, equivalent quadrilateral type, wherein either type performs equally as well as the other. No advantage is gained and no problem is solved by choosing one quadrilateral type over the other.
Claim(s) 13, as best understood with the above cited indefiniteness, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRoche (US8844105).
LaRoche shows all claimed features of the instant invention with the exception of the specifically recited method of packaging steps.
Note the description of the primary reference in the rejection of claim 9 above. Also note the chair components provided in the internal space of the backrest part (see Figure 8). Also note the lower part of the seat part and the rear surface of the backrest part by a detachable member (zipper). Additionally note the seat part and the backrest part can be attached to each other by a detachable member (fabric 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify LaRoche by packaging his device by the specifically recited method of packaging steps. This modification eases the reduction of size of the device for shipping, storing, etc. by way of a non-labor intensive, tool-less, process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 12, 14 and 16 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.
Claim 15 is allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification a pair of connecting link parts connecting the backrest part and the seat part, a pair of armrest parts each assembled to one side of the connecting link parts, and a plurality of connecting legs each having a wheel assembled at an end thereof, in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification a method for packaging a prefabricated chair including the steps of attaching the seat part and the backrest part to each other, wherein a backrest surface of the backrest part and a seating surface of the seat part are in surface contact with each other, and the lower part of the seat part and the rear surface of the backrest part become exposed surfaces, in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification a method for packaging a prefabricated chair including the steps of opening a lower part of a seat part and a rear surface of a backrest part by a detachable member, accommodating a compressed cushion within an internal space of the backrest part, and accommodating the seat part within the remaining internal space; in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification a method for packaging a prefabricated chair including the steps of
the prior art of record does not show singly or by obvious modification a method for packaging a prefabricated chair wherein the plurality of chair components includes a pair of connecting link parts connecting the backrest part and the seat part, a pair of armrest parts each assembled to one side of the connecting link parts, and a plurality of connecting legs each having a wheel assembled at an end thereof, wherein the connecting link parts and the armrest parts are each packaged folded, with their divided members joined by a hinge, and the connecting legs and the height adjusting unit are packaged in a slidably accommodated state, in combination with all other specifically claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN107788734A shows a chair with wheeled legs. A seating assembly having storable components is shown by each of Palmer et al (US4746167), Chen (US3765718), Hoffman et al (US7207624), GB2040159A and Yao et al (US10897996).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON NELSON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30am-1:30pm.
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.
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.
mn /MILTON NELSON JR/August 7, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
