DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/199,919 filed 05/06/2025 which claims benefit of 63/645,251 05/10/2024.
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 § 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 1-20 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
RE claim 1 and 12 (and throughout): The term “soft” in claims 1, 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Is claim 13 supposed to depend on claim 2 or 12? As currently drafted, it depends on claim 2. However, claim 13 duplicates limitations from claim 2. As best understood, claim 13 depends on claim 12.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the child-resistant end caps " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 9 and 19 the following limitation renders the claims indefinite: “wherein the removable soft seat and the crotch restraint are angled in accordance with infant safety seat standards.”
What is the angle (or range of angles) of the seat and the crotch restraint? What is the acceptable angle (or range of angles) in accordance with infant safety seat standards?
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 12,484,710 B2)(hereinafter Yang) in view of Lee (US 9,339,115 B2)(hereinafter Lee).
RE Claim 1: Yang discloses a portable folding chair (folding high chair), comprising:
a collapsible frame (1), the frame comprising four legs and four fastened x-braces (col 3, ln 30-55; Figs 1, 5), wherein each leg is pivotably coupled to two of the fastened x-braces (col 3, ln 30-50; Figs 1-5);
a safety latch (6) comprising at least two positions (col 3, ln 30-50), wherein when the safety latch is in an engaged position the collapsible frame is locked into a fully open position (col 3, ln 55- end), and wherein when the safety latch is in a released position the collapsible frame can be collapsed into a folded position (col 3, ln 55 – end); and a seat (2)(Figs 1-5).
Yang does not explicitly teach the seat is a removable soft seat.
However, Lee teaches a collapsible chair (analogous art) further teaches the seat is a removable soft seat (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang in view of Lee such that the seat is a removable soft seat as taught by Lee for the advantages of compact storage (col 3, ln 45 – end).
RE Claim 6: Yang as modified discloses the portable folding chair according to claim 1, Yang further discloses
wherein the safety latch has a safety position (col 3, ln 55 – end), wherein when the safety latch is in the safety position, the collapsible frame is locked into a partially open position (col 3, ln 55 – end).
Claims 7 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Quinn (US 8091962 B2)(hereinafter Quinn).
RE Claim 7: Yang as modified discloses the portable folding chair according to claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach further comprising a flexible canopy removably coupled to the soft seat or the frame
However, Quinn teaches a collapsible chair (analogous art) and further teaches further comprising a flexible canopy removably coupled to the soft seat or the frame (col 2, ln 18-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang as modified in view of Quinn by incorporating a flexible canopy removably coupled to the soft seat or the frame as taught by Quinn for the advantages of improved comfort.
RE Claim 11: Yang as modified discloses the portable folding chair according to claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach further a removable canopy removably connected to the collapsible frame.
However, Quinn teaches a collapsible chair (analogous art) and further teaches further comprising a removable canopy removably connected to the collapsible frame (col 2, ln 18-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang as modified in view of Quinn by incorporating a removable canopy removably connected to the collapsible frame as taught by Quinn for the advantages of improved comfort.
Claims 9-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Faber (US 7,163,228 B2)(hereinafter Faber).
RE Claim 9: Yang as modified discloses the portable folding chair according to claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the removable soft seat comprises a crotch restraint, wherein the crotch restraint and the removable soft seat are angled in accordance with infant safety seat standards.
However, Faber teaches a collapsible chair (abstract) (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the removable soft seat comprises a crotch restraint, wherein the crotch restraint and the removable soft seat are angled in accordance with infant safety seat standards (col 3, ln 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang as modified in view of Faber such that the removable soft seat comprises a crotch restraint, wherein the crotch restraint and the removable soft seat are angled in accordance with infant safety seat standards as taught by Faber for the advantages of securely holding the occupant.
RE Claim 10: Yang as modified discloses the portable folding chair according to claim 1,
Yang does not explicitly teach further comprising one of a safety harness or a safety belt.
However, Faber teaches a collapsible chair (abstract) (analogous art) and further teaches further comprising one of a safety harness or a safety belt (col 3, ln 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang as modified in view of Faber such that further comprising one of a safety harness or a safety belt as taught by Faber for the advantages of securely holding the occupant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, and 12-20 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 and rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (depending on how they are rewritten).
The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of:
the safety latch is connected to a sliding lock inside one of the legs and comprises a release button on a foot connector (claim 2, and dependent claim 8);
wherein the removable soft seat is attached to the collapsible frame by a child-resistant end cap, wherein the end cap is removably coupled to a top end of a leg to hold the soft seat portion in place (claims 3-5);
the safety latch positioned on a foot portion of one of the legs (claim 12), along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various other collapsible seats. See specifically 6644731 with a slide lock, no release button on a foot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
