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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figs. 3E, 4B, 4C, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, the white text within the images is very difficult to read. The white text should be replaced with more-legible text (e.g., in black instead of white).
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that [0049] should recite “a telescoping mechanism 606a,[[664b]]606b” and “the arms 604a,[[642b]]604b” (correcting the typos; as in Figs. 6A-6C).
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 20 is identical to independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 should be canceled or Amended to not be identical to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Upon consultation with the Specification, the Office observes that Applicant has not actually stated what “configured for asynchronous engagement” refers to. For example, regarding temporality, Applicant merely states “In certain embodiments, the one or more connectors 1104 may be configured to enable simultaneous engagement of a plurality of connectors 1104 with a plurality of storage compartment mounts 314,1014” ([0060]) which presumably is done by e.g. aligning connectors 1104 with storage compartment mounts 1014 and engaging as depicted in Figs. 11A-11D. However, this statement regarding “simultaneous engagement” does not provide an actual description of what arrangement(s), exactly, would provide connectors “configured for asynchronous engagement.”
First, while there is a presumption that an adequate Written Description of the claimed invention is present in the Specification as filed, a question as to whether a Specification provides an adequate Written Description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack Written Description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad Genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow Species with no evidence that the Genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises.
In this case, (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result (configuration of the one or more connectors “for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts”) but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved (how, exactly the one or more connectors may be configured “for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts”). For example, it appears this might broadly refer to wherein the connectors may slide along the seat frame and thus can be arranged to align or not align with the storage compartment mounts, or to a spatial arrangement of the connectors that is the same as the “simultaneous engagement” arrangement but which has a soft/flexible structure of the storage compartment such that only some connectors attach at first while other connectors can be attached second, or to connectors which can change shape such that only some connectors mate with the storage compartment mounts while other connectors do not unless their shape is also changed, or to any other possible changes in any of the structures, but Applicant has not actually Described any specific arrangements or structures which would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.” In other words, disclosure of an arrangement for “simultaneous engagement” does not actually Describe any arrangements for “asynchronous engagement.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably believe that Applicant has adequately demonstrated possession of this feature.
Accordingly, this claim lacks an adequate Written Description for its full scope.
Second, based on the foregoing, it is unclear what other arrangements or structures would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts” or not. For example, it is unclear if wherein the connectors may slide along the seat frame and thus can be arranged to align or not align with the storage compartment mounts would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts” or not. Similarly, it is unclear if a spatial arrangement of the connectors that is the same as the “simultaneous engagement” arrangement but which has a soft/flexible structure of the storage compartment such that only some connectors attach at first while other connectors can be attached second would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts” or not. As well, it is unclear if connectors which can change shape such that only some connectors mate with the storage compartment mounts while other connectors do not unless their shape is also changed would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts” or not. Finally, it is unclear if any other possible changes in any of the structures would provide “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts” or not.
Accordingly, the claim scope is also rendered Indefinite.
For examination purposes, claim 8 will be treated as though merely manipulating the connectors, storage compartment mounts, storage compartment, or seat frame in any way such that not all connectors must attach to the storage compartment mounts at the same time provides “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Nevertheless, in response, it appears Applicant should simply cancel claim 8, due to the lacking disclosure.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wilcox (2021/0045535).
Regarding independent claim 1 (and 20), Wilcox discloses A deployable chair (abstract “Portable chairs including a detachable container” and Figs.) comprising:
a seatback frame ([0061] “The folding chair frame can further include a back support frame element 115”);
a seat frame connected to said seatback frame ([0062] “The folding chair frame can further include a seat support frame element 120”);
a plurality of legs connected to said seat frame ([0062] “The seat support frame element 120 can be pivotally coupled to the rear leg frame element 110. The seat support frame element 120 can also be pivotally coupled to the front leg frame element 105”);
one or more armrests connected to said seatback frame ([0061] “The folding chair frame can further include a back support frame element 115 pivotally connected to the left arm support frame element 125A. The back support frame element 115 also being pivotally connected to the right arm support frame element 125B”);
a seat connected to said seat frame ([0063] “The folding chair 100 can further include seat support material 155”); and
one or more storage compartment mounts on a bottom surface of said seat frame ([0069] “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example”; the corresponding looping, clipping, or hooking locations that loops, clips, or hooks would attach to on the bottom of the seat frame = one or more storage compartment mounts and e.g. [0078] “The front coupling joints 170 can further include first front coupling connectors 171 for connecting the second front coupling joint portions 170B of each front coupling joint 170 to the insulated container 140. For example, as shown, the first front coupling connector 171 can include an integrated clip like a carabiner for connecting to a front connector 144 of the insulated container 140. As shown in FIG. 7, front connectors 144 of the insulated container 140 can be affixed to a top side of the insulated container 140 by straps 146 sewn or otherwise attached the upper side of the insulated container 140”).
Applicant is reminded that the claimed features are being interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard of claim construction utilized by the Office. The Office observes that, in the Specification, Applicant states “Specific embodiments of connectors 1104 comprise one or more magnets configured to magnetically connect with corresponding magnets on the one or more storage compartment mounts 314,1014. It is understood that many different connectors 1104 are possible, including for example, Fidlock® connectors, dovetail connectors, cleats, and others known in the art” ([0060]). Accordingly, “one or more storage compartment mounts” is reasonably construed to broadly encompass equivalent structures to magnets, Fidlock® connectors, dovetail connectors, cleats, and others known in the art, such as the corresponding looping, clipping, or hooking locations that loops, clips, or hooks would attach to on the bottom of the seat frame, in addition to the exemplary first front coupling connector 171 including an integrated clip like a carabiner.
Additionally, Applicant may see the rejections for claims 2 and 3 below over Cagle, Springmann, and Clarke, regarding magnet connectors and dovetail connectors, specifically.
Regarding claim 4, Wilcox discloses a storage compartment comprising one or more connectors configured to releasably engage with said one or more storage compartment mounts ([0069] “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” and e.g. [0078] “For example, as shown, the first front coupling connector 171 can include an integrated clip like a carabiner for connecting to a front connector 144 of the insulated container 140. As shown in FIG. 7, front connectors 144 of the insulated container 140 can be affixed to a top side of the insulated container 140 by straps 146 sewn or otherwise attached the upper side of the insulated container 140”; in Fig. 7, front connectors 144 appear to be depicted as loops or clips).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is reminded that, as in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above, claim 8 will be treated as though merely manipulating the connectors, storage compartment mounts, storage compartment, or seat frame in any way such that not all connectors must attach to the storage compartment mounts at the same time provides “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]). Loops, clips, and hooks can be manipulated such that only one connector at a time is attached to its corresponding looping, clipping, or hooking locations that loops, clips, or hooks would attach to on the bottom of the seat frame. Accordingly, Wilcox anticipates “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for asynchronous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Regarding claim 9, Wilcox discloses
wherein said storage compartment has a height (e.g., as in Figs.),
wherein, when said deployable chair is in a deployed state, said one or more storage compartment mounts are at least a minimum distance above a surface on which said legs rest (e.g., as in Figs.), and
wherein said height is less than said minimum distance above said surface (e.g., as in Figs.).
Regarding claim 15, Wilcox discloses wherein said seat comprises tensioned fabric ([0083] “The folding chair portion 100 can further include the seat support material 155 and back support material 150. The fabric of the seat support material 155 and back support material 150 can include fabric webbing of fabric strips. … The strips of the seat support material 155 and back support material 150 of the folding chair 100 can be woven or can be a single sheet of fabric or multiple sheets of fabric”).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]) and e.g. “For example, as shown, the first front coupling connector 171 can include an integrated clip like a carabiner for connecting to a front connector 144 of the insulated container 140. As shown in FIG. 7, front connectors 144 of the insulated container 140 can be affixed to a top side of the insulated container 140 by straps 146 sewn or otherwise attached the upper side of the insulated container 140” ([0078]).
Although Wilcox does not specify that the front connectors 144 that are loops, clips, or hooks and/or straps 146 “sewn or otherwise attached” to the upper side of insulated container 140 are “molded integrally” with the insulated container, it is of course well-known to mold such structures integrally instead for manufacturing simplicity, structural simplicity, etc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include “wherein said one or more connectors are molded integrally with said storage compartment,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to simplify the manufacturing of the insulated container, simplify the structure of the insulated container, etc.
For example, Applicant fails to provide any criticality to wherein the connectors are molded integrally with the storage compartment. See also MPEP 2144.02 (“In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")”).
Regarding claim 6, Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]). Loops, clips, and hooks can easily be manipulated such that every connector is attached at the same time to its corresponding looping, clipping, or hooking locations that loops, clips, or hooks would attach to on the bottom of the seat frame. For example, integrally molded hooks can be pushed on to their corresponding hooking locations at the same time. Accordingly, Wilcox provides “wherein said one or more connectors are configured for simultaneous engagement with said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Regarding claim 7, Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]) and e.g. “The front coupling joints 170 can further include first front coupling connectors 171 for connecting the second front coupling joint portions 170B of each front coupling joint 170 to the insulated container 140. For example, as shown, the first front coupling connector 171 can include an integrated clip like a carabiner for connecting to a front connector 144 of the insulated container 140. As shown in FIG. 7, front connectors 144 of the insulated container 140 can be affixed to a top side of the insulated container 140 by straps 146 sewn or otherwise attached the upper side of the insulated container 140” ([0078]).
As in claim 1, the corresponding looping, clipping, or hooking locations that loops, clips, or hooks would attach to on the bottom of the seat frame would be one or more storage compartment mounts, and thus these would be equal numbers of each. For example, the Wilcox embodiment which uses an integrated clip like a carabiner as in Fig. 7 would clearly have one integrated clip for each of the front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145. Accordingly, Wilcox provides “wherein the number of said one or more connectors is equal to the number of said one or more storage compartment mounts.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Cagle (2023/0355000).
Regarding claim 2, Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]).
However, Wilcox fails to specify using magnets to attach, couple, or connect the insulated container.
Nevertheless, magnets are a well-known alternative to loops, clips, or hooks to attach seat parts. For example, Cagle teaches “A collapsible stool” (abstract) wherein “Seat 112 (or a portion thereof, such as a solid base) is attached to coupling assembly 114. Seat 112 may be fixedly or removably attached to coupling assembly 114 using hardware (e.g., screws and bolts), adhesives, welding, magnets, hook-and-loop, or other suitable means” ([0014]; and also similarly in [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include magnets as the front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate means of making the insulated container 140 “connectable and disconnectable” i.e. “removably attached” (thereby including “wherein said one or more storage compartment mounts comprise one or more magnets”).
Second, this modification is obvious as no more than the simple substitution of a known element (known magnets) for another known element (known loops, clips, or hooks) within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, in a manner that would have achieved predictable results (removably attaching an insulated container under a seat). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Springmann (5,641,197) and Clarke (6,478,371).
Regarding claim 3, Wilcox discloses “The insulated container 140 can be connectable and disconnectable by front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 of the insulated container 140. The front connectors 144 and rear connectors 145 can be in the form of loops, clips, or hooks attached, coupled, or connected to the insulated container 140, for example” ([0069]).
However, Wilcox fails to specify using a dovetail connector to attach, couple, or connect the insulated container.
Nevertheless, dovetail connector rails are a well-known alternative to loops, clips, or hooks to attach seat parts.
For example, the reference to Springmann teaches a collapsible chair having a removable cooler assembly having a rail mechanism and cooler member slidably connected with the rail mechanism (abstract and Figs.).
Similarly, the reference to Clarke teaches “A retractable removable concession holder … The concession container is removably attached to the mounting bracket which is slidingly attached to the seat attachment portion” (abstract) wherein “The securing rail 25 has a general C-shaped cross-section configuration with the interior 27 of the securing rail 25 forming a dovetail notch which is opened at the lower end of the securing rail 25 and closed by a tab 28 at the top of the securing rail 25. The interior 27 of the securing rail 25 is fashioned to reversibly mate with the dovetail 48 located on front of the mounting bracket 40” (Col. 6, lines 28-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include a rail mechanism e.g. a dovetail connector rail as the connectors, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate means of making the insulated container 140 “connectable and disconnectable” i.e. “a removable cooler assembly” (thereby including “wherein said one or more storage compartment mounts comprise dovetail connectors”).
Second, this modification is obvious as no more than the simple substitution of a known element (known dovetail connector rails) for another known element (known loops, clips, or hooks) within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, in a manner that would have achieved predictable results (removably attaching an insulated container under a seat). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Morley (2020/0054139).
Regarding claim 10, Wilcox discloses “The foldable chair portion 110 can further include various different releasable closure retention mechanisms” ([0087]) such as a rotatable clip ([0087]-[0089]) or a strap ([0090]).
However, Wilcox does not appear to describe a release that deploys the chair from a folded state to a deployed state.
Morley teaches “A multifunctional folding chair” (abstract) wherein “the foldable chair may include a securing mechanism for maintaining the chair in the closed position. Such securing mechanism may include buttons, snaps, slide fasteners, ties, tabs, hook and loop fasteners, clips, and any other suitable fastener. The securing mechanism may keep the chair releasably closed such that when a user releases the securing feature, the chair automatically opens. Such a securing mechanism may include a shock mechanism, a spring mechanism, or a combination shock and spring mechanism, or any other comparable element that is conventional in the art” ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include “a securing mechanism” that keeps “the chair releasably closed such that when a user releases the securing feature, the chair automatically opens,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means to allow the foldable chair to automatically open and thus make it easier for a user (thereby including “a release, wherein manipulation of said release enables the deployable chair to transition between a folded state and a deployed state”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Hensley (2010/0109386).
Regarding claim 11, Wilcox discloses “The folding chair frame can further include a back support frame element 115” ([0061]).
However, Wilcox fails to provide a material that permits flexion of the seatback when a user leans back.
Hensley teaches “A portable two-frame collapsible chair” (abstract) wherein “The flexible backrest 106, typically made with similar material as the seat member 105, is attached to the top of the outer frame 102 using screws, rivets, sewing, etc., and is affixed in such a way that its flexibility acts as a hinge, allowing it to pivot back” ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include a “flexible backrest,” with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a backrest wherein “its flexibility acts as a hinge, allowing it to pivot back” and thus increase comfort for a user (thereby including “wherein said seatback frame comprises a material that permits flexion of said seatback when a user leans back in said deployable chair”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Kelly (2011/0181078).
Regarding claim 12, Wilcox provides all elements, except for a sun shade.
Nevertheless, attachable sun shades for collapsible chairs are rather well-known in the art. For example, Kelly teaches “A folding chair” including “a sunshade” (abstract) wherein “The shade 130 is attached to the chair 120 by inserting the bottom end of each rear tube into the hole of the steel ferrule 151 so that, when the rear tubes 174 are inserted into the steel ferrules 151, the front ends of the top tubes 176 point towards the front of the chair 120, that is, towards the side of the chair opposite the backrest 124. A cord 180 connects the front end of each top tube 176 to another location on the chair 120, such as to the outer edge of an armrest support member 142 on the same side of the chair 120. Each cord 180 may be tensioned to pull each top tube 176 outward and away from each other to maintain tension in the top panel 172 so as to suspend the shade 130 over the seat 122” ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include “a sunshade” that can be attached to the chair, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide shade from the sun and thus increase comfort for a user (thereby including “a sun shade configured to connect to said seatback frame”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known deployable chair, attachable sun shades) according to known techniques (attaching a sun shade to a deployable chair) in a manner that achieves predictable results (shading a user from the sun). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox in view of Kelly as in claim 12, and further in view of Partridge (2017/0164752).
Regarding claim 13, as in claim 12, Kelly teaches a sun shade.
However, Wilcox fails to provide a sun shade enclosure configured to releasably connect to said sun shade.
Nevertheless, such enclosures are known in the art. For example, Partridge teaches “An adjustable height, covered, foldable, configurable modifiable seat with a seat frame (comprising a bottom frame, a back frame, and an upper frame)” (abstract) wherein “As shown in FIG. 1, in one embodiment a fabric 30 is disposed over at least a portion of the seat frame 10” ([0050]) and “curtains 32 may be removably attached to the fabric 30 by hook-and-loop fasteners 137 disposed on the surface of the fabric 30 and the curtain 32, as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1C” ([0052]), wherein “The curtain 32 may be furled or unfurled while the modifiable seat is in use, to provide a user 11 with protection from precipitation, wind, or other nuisances” ([0051]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include curtains which are removably attached to a fabric, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “provide a user 11 with protection from precipitation, wind, or other nuisances” (thereby including “a sun shade enclosure configured to releasably connect to said sun shade”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known deployable chair, attachable sun shades, attachable curtains/enclosures) according to known techniques (attaching a sun shade and curtains/enclosures to a deployable chair) in a manner that achieves predictable results (shading a user from the sun, wind, and rain). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Cieszko (2022/0167746).
Regarding claim 14, Wilcox provides all elements, except for an armrest button to incline/recline the seatback.
Cieszko teaches “A portable chair” wherein “The first front leg and the first back leg may be pivotally connected to a sliding pivot on an armrest, where the sliding pivot moves relative to the armrest to adjust the chair from an upright position to a reclined position” (abstract), wherein “The control assembly 200A may include sliding pivot 186A if the control assembly 200A is on armrest 184 (or sliding pivot 192A if the control assembly 200A is on armrest 190), a guide rail or plurality of guide rails 202A positioned on a bottom side of the armrest body 189, where the sliding pivot 186A is slidably engaged with the guide rails 202A, a set of engaging teeth 204A positioned adjacent the guide rail(s) 202A, a side paddle 206A that includes or is connected to the engaging teeth 204A, and a resilient member 208A (or plurality of resilient members)” ([0071]) and “the button 206C is moved upward to disengage the engaging teeth 204C from the teeth 210C located on the top of the sliding pivot 186C. Once the teeth 210C are disengaged from the engaging teeth 204C, the sliding pivot 186C may move freely along the guide rail 202C” ([0077]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include buttons on the armrests which move upward to disengage engaging teeth to allow a sliding pivot to move freely along a guide rail to adjust the chair from an upright position to a reclined position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “adjust the chair from an upright position to a reclined position” and thus increase user comfort (thereby including “wherein said one or more armrests comprise a button, and
wherein pressing said button enables said seatback to incline or recline”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Pedemonte (6,402,231).
Regarding claim 16, Wilcox provides all elements, except for a releasable tray.
Pedemonte teaches “A multi-function, transportable, recreation folding chair” (abstract) wherein “chair 10 includes tray table 100, shown in FIG. 5. Tray table 100 may be stored in seat portion container. Tray table 100 is foldable (as shown by dashed line 104), and is releasably attached to chair 10 at the armrest portions, via connectors 102, and provides for a personal table for use by the user. Connectors 102, as shown in FIG. 5, may hinge up and down with respect to tray table 100” (Col. 5, lines 50-56).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include a tray table releasably attached to the chair, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “for a personal table for use by the user” (thereby including “a tray configured to releasably attach to said one or more armrests”).
Applicant may also see the reference to Whitlock in the Conclusion below.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilcox as in claim 1, and further in view of Colon (2022/0331190).
Regarding claim 18, Wilcox provides all elements, except for a soft-close hinge for the seatback and seat frame.
Colon teaches “a foldable or stowable foot rest” (abstract) wherein “The one or more leg extensions LE1, LE2 may also include a soft-close hinge, which is a type of hinge that features a hydraulic mechanism built into it. As the foot rest is lowered, the hydraulics take charge and ease the lowering of the leg extensions LE1, LE2 in somewhat of a gliding motion until reaching a position” ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wilcox to include a soft-close hinge i.e. a hinge featuring a hydraulic mechanism built into it, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a hinge wherein “the hydraulics take charge and ease” the hinging “in somewhat of a gliding motion until reaching a position” (thereby including “a soft-close hinge between said seatback frame and said seat frame”).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known folding chairs, known soft-close hinges) according to known techniques (attaching a hinge between the seatback and seat frame) in a manner that achieves predictable results (closing the hinge in a gentle manner with hydraulics). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The reference to Shyr (6,000,752) depicts a folding chair with a receptable attached below using zippers (abstract). However, this reference uses a “permanent hinge 45” that is “coupled with a zipper 27, snaps, buttons, Velcro, or like fasteners that extend to three sides of the receptacle 17” (4:35-38) and moreover fails to disclose armrests etc.
The reference to Whitlock (2010/0096890) teaches a collapsible portable infant chair (abstract) wherein “The tray assembly 70 may be detachably secured to the arm rests, if desired, using hook-an-loop fasteners” ([0023]). However, this reference fails to teach a tray configured to attached to armrests wherein the tray comprises a track and a bracket.
The reference to Beattie (2018/0010376) is an exemplary reference which teaches a hinge with a soft-close mechanism (abstract) which may also have a self-close mechanism ([0005]). However, this reference and others like it are generally directed to hinges for mounted doors and the like, and it is unclear if or how these self-close hinges would operate or be designed for use with a deployable/collapsible chair.
The reference to Foggio (2020/0231411) teaches a removable under-seat compartment for folding seats that includes a compartment bracket having rails and a compartment having flaps that engage with the rails of the bracket to slide the compartment in and out from under the seat (abstract). However, this reference is directed to a stair lift folding seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights