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 .
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.
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 1-8 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 1 recites the limitation “to allow a pet to easily access the pet seat at the user’s desire.” The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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 rt would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “pet-friendly materials.” The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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 limitation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a securing mechanism in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stringer et al. (US 20230217892 A1 and hereinafter “Stringer”) in view of Chappell (US 20200298897 A1).
Re Claim 1
Stringer discloses:
A human-pet co-seating apparatus (see all figures) comprising:
a frame (figure 3, e.g. 122) having a front, a back, and two sides (figure 3);
a human seat (102) attached near one side of the frame (figure 1);
a pet seat (e.g. 124) attached near the other side of the frame (fig. 1)
…
Stringer does not explicitly disclose:
an elevation piece attached to the front of the frame and designed to be positioned in an engaged position and a disengaged position by a user to allow a pet to easily access the pet seat at the user's desire, and the elevation piece including a walking surface for the pet to traverse;
a securing mechanism to secure the elevation piece in at least one of the engaged position and disengaged position; and
the human-pet co-seating apparatus being constructed for the elevation piece to be stored under at least one of the human seat and the pet seat when in the disengaged position.
Chappell teaches the following for the purpose of having a storable and securable ramp for facilitating access by an animal / pet (see figs. 1-4 and 6-7; see [0010] and [0034] and [0043] of Chappel as well as the mapping below, incorporating the relevant features as mapped, described, and claimed and note the swiveling / pivoting as well):
an elevation piece (20) attached to the front of the frame (fig. 1) and designed to be positioned in an engaged position and a disengaged position by a user to allow a pet to easily access the pet seat at the user's desire (see figs. 1-4; see [0043] as well for example), and the elevation piece including a walking surface for the pet to traverse (see fig. 1; see [0028] and/or [0034] for example);
a securing mechanism to secure the elevation piece in at least one of the engaged position and disengaged position (110 and 112);
the human-pet co-seating apparatus being constructed for the elevation piece to be stored under at least one of the human seat and the pet seat when in the disengaged position (see figs. 1-4; see [0043] as well for example).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified Stringer with the teachings of Chappell above for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Re Claim 2
Stringer as modified above discloses:
further comprising a first backpiece (backrest of the chair), a headrest ([0005]), a first arm (one of 212), a second backpiece (e.g. back of the pet seat or back of the frame), a second arm (fig. 1 right side arm of the chair in the perspective as shown), and an intermediate arm (arm centrally located in the perspective of fig 1 to which the pet seat attaches).
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stringer et al. (US 20230217892 A1 and hereinafter “Stringer”) in view of Chappell (US 20200298897 A1) and further in view of Official Notice.
Re Claim 3
Stringer as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the intermediate arm is moveable about a pivot between an up position and a down position.
Stringer discloses that the armrests may be adjustable in [0005], but does not explicitly disclose that the intermediate arm is moveable about a pivot between an up position and a down position. Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well-known in the art to have adjustable arms which are movable about a pivot between an up position and a down position to facilitate user comfort, to facilitate entry and exit into a chair, and/or to suit a user’s preference. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Stringer as modified above so as to have the intermediate arm movable about a pivot between an up position and a down position for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
Re Claim 4
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the human seat and the pet seat are made of pet-friendly materials ([0027], [0030], [0035], [0043], [0050], [0051], [0053], [0057], [0059]).
Re Claim 5
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the elevation piece is made to swivel about at least one axis (see the teaching above incorporating the feature claimed; note that it is made to swivel per the figures in the reference; additionally, or alternatively, swiveling about one axis is rotating / pivoting in relation to the one axis, which the elevation piece does – see figs. 1-4 and 6-7; see [0010] and [0034] and [0043] of Chappel describing the structure incorporated in the teaching above).
Re Claim 6
Stringer as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the elevation piece is a powered version having at least one actuator, a power supply, and a controller.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that providing a powered version of a manually operated element such as the elevation piece via having at least one actuator, a power supply, and a controller is old and well known in the art. Modifying Stringer as modified above such that the elevation piece is a powered version having at least one actuator, a power supply, and a controller would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose of facilitating operation of the element, lowering the risk of injury to the operator, and/or assisting users who are impaired / disabled / young / elderly / or who lack sufficient strength to use the apparatus.
Re Claim 7
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the human seat and the pet seat comprise different total areas of a total seating area created by the frame (fig. 1).
Re Claim 8
Stringer as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the human seat and the pet seat are identical in size, shape, and material.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the element(s) such that the human seat and the pet seat are identical in size and shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. The above would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding having the same material, see mapping above, but to the extent necessary note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the materials to be identical since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional pet beds / seats and ramp structures are provided. Some of the ramp structures are linked with the pet beds / seats, whereas others are included as separately attachable structures. US 3415539 A is relevant insofar as it is a sidecar apparatus / pet seat as well. The same is true for US 3595600 A; see the top of column 7. US 3426368 A describes a pet carrier for vehicles which is of similar concept. US 20130199457 A1 is a sidecar attachment for a horseback rider to utilize. US 20180178703 A1 features a carrier system with a ramp and is considered highly relevant as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)272-8525. 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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
