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 1-9 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 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 and a sidecar attachment 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 and 4-6 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 sidecar pet seat (e.g. 124) attached to the frame (figure 1);
a sidecar attachment mechanism (118) attached to the frame (figs. 1 and 3) and designed to attach (fig. 1) the sidecar pet seat to a chair (fig. 1) made for at least one human to sit in (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 sidecar 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 constructed for the elevation piece to be stored under the sidecar 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 4
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the sidecar attachment mechanism is adjustable to accommodate attaching to chairs of different widths, sizes, and seat heights (118, see also [0028] - [0030]).
Re Claim 5
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the sidecar attachment mechanism is detachable and stored within the frame to convert the human-pet co-seating apparatus into a standalone pet seating apparatus (118, see also [0028] - [0030]; removable and capable of simply being stored within the confines of the frame, particularly so when merely a tie or velcro attachment).
Re Claim 6
Stringer as modified above discloses:
wherein the elevation piece has at least one intermediate position which the elevation is capable of being locked in by the securing mechanism (see Chappell teaching above and note that the at least one intermediate position is just any position which is not fully extended or retracted; note further that it is capable of being locked in by the securing mechanism because the claim merely requires the capability).
Claim(s) 2-3 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 2
Stringer as modified above discloses an elevation piece which is a ramp (see teaching of Chappell above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the elevation piece comprises a foldable ramp having an extension piece. Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have ramps which are foldable and have an extension piece for the purpose of facilitating storage and/or extension of a support / walking / ramp surface for a user (human and/or pet). 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 such that the elevation piece comprises a foldable ramp having an extension piece for the reason(s) articulated above.
Re Claim 3
Stringer as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the elevation piece comprises at least one step.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to utilize elevation pieces which comprise at least one step for the purpose of facilitating entry by a user (human and/or pet). 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 such that the elevation piece comprises at least one step for the purpose as articulated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim 7 requires that the sidecar attachment mechanism includes a counterweight. While a counterweight is provided in the Stringer reference ([0033]), it is on the non-attached arm of the desk chair. There is no teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other reason to provide the sidecar attachment mechanism with a counterweight. Doing so would likely unbalance the apparatus and defeat the purpose of the arrangement of the elements. Claims 8-9 depend from claim 7. No other references were found with a counterbalance as claimed which would be reasonably combined with Stringer as modified above.
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
