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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 209186058).
Claim 1- Li discloses a height-adjustable chair comprising:
a frame (1), a seating unit (2, 3), at least one front connector (9) connecting a front portion (not designated, figs. 1-2) of the seating unit with a front portion (not designated) of the frame (1), and at least one rear connector (4, 7) connecting a rear portion of the seating unit (seat 2 and backrest 3 rear portions not designated, figs. 1-2) with a rear portion (not designated) of the frame (1);
wherein the at least one rear connector (4, 7) comprises a sliding slot, and wherein the at least one front connector (9) comprises a pivoting arm having a first end pivotably coupled to the frame (1), and a second end pivotably coupled to the seating unit (2, 3).
Claim 2- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the moving mechanisms, comprising the front and rear connectors, are disposed on both sides of the frame (pg. 3, last paragraph) comprising two front connectors (9, 9) connecting each side of the seating unit to a respective front side of the frame (1), and two rear connectors (4/7, 4/7) connecting each side of the seating unit to a respective rear side of the frame.
Claim 4- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the sliding slot (7), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), is provided in the seating unit (the backrest 3 comprises the slot 7).
Claim 5- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the sliding slot (4), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), is tilted relative to a vertical axis (the slot 4 has an inclined middle portion, pg. 4- first paragraph).
Claims 6-7 - Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the rear connector (4), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), further comprises a sliding member (5) arranged to slide in said sliding slot (pg. 4- first paragraph); and wherein the sliding member is a rod (the structural cross-section of the sliding “block” 5, shown in figs. 1-2, sufficiently discloses a structural configuration that meets the limitation “rod” because it is capable of functioning like a sliding rod).
Claim 8- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the sliding slot (7), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), has an upper end (not designated, fig. 2) defining a lowered position of the seating unit (2, 3) relative the frame (1), and a bottom end (not designated, fig. 2) defining an elevated position of the seating unit (fig. 1) relative the frame (the portion of the sliding slot 7 shown in fig. 1, in which a locating pin 802 is disposed, is capable of functioning as a “bottom” end).
Claim 9- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 8, wherein the upper end of the sliding slot (7) is arranged rear-wise of the bottom end of the sliding slot (due to the rearward incline of the backrest 3 in the lowered position, fig. 2).
Claim 11- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the frame (1) comprises front legs and rear legs, and a cross-bar (“front crosspiece”) extending horizontally between the front legs (pg. 3, last paragraph).
Claim 12- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 11, wherein the cross-bar (“front crosspiece”) forms a support for the front portion of the seating unit when the seating unit is arranged in a lowermost position (fig. 2, pg. 3, last paragraph).
Claim 14- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the seating unit, when moved from an elevated position (fig. 1) to a lowermost position, is tilted backwards (fig. 2).
Claim 16- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 2, wherein the sliding slot (7), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), is provided in the seating unit (the backrest 3 comprises the slot 7).
Claim 17- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 4, wherein the sliding slot (4), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), is tilted relative a vertical axis (the slot has an inclined middle portion, pg. 4- first paragraph).
Claims 18-19 - Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 4, wherein the rear connector (4), of the at least one rear connector (4, 7), further comprises a sliding member (5) arranged to slide in said sliding slot (pg. 4- first paragraph); and wherein the sliding member is a rod (the structural cross-section of the sliding “block” 5, shown in figs. 1-2, sufficiently discloses a structural configuration that meets the limitation “rod” because it is capable of functioning like a sliding rod).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Roder (US 6234573).
Claim 3- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 1, wherein the pivoting arm (9) is linear-shaped. Li teaches the pivoting arm pivots around an axis in order to move the seating unit between upper and lower positions.
Li does not teach that the pivoting arm is arc shaped. However, the specific shape of a pivoting arm that is configured to adjust a seat position is considered a matter of design choice when operation of said pivoting arm yields the predictable result of the desired change in seat position.
Roder teaches a chair comprising a seating unit, and a front connector (40) connecting a front portion (11) of the seating unit with a front portion of the frame, wherein the front connector comprises a pivoting arm that is arc shaped (fig. 1). Roder teaches that the pivoting arm (40) pivots around an axis in order to move the seating unit between upper and lower positions (figs. 2-4).
Accordingly, Li and Roder teach it is known that a linear-shaped seat pivoting arm and an arc-shaped seat pivoting arm are functional equivalents for moving a seat between multiple seat positions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted an arc-shaped pivoting arm for a linear-shaped pivoting arm because both configurations were known equivalents for adjusting a seat position of a height-adjustable chair.
Claim 15- Li discloses the height-adjustable chair according to claim 2, wherein the pivoting arm (9) is linear-shaped, but Li does not teach that the pivoting arm is arc shaped as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted an arc-shaped pivoting arm for a linear-shaped pivoting arm for the same reasons detailed in the rejection of claim 3 (claim 3 reciting the same limitation as the instant claim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13 and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 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 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./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
