UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/277,778
`
`10/20/2011
`
`Anthony J. Warncke
`
`Sauder Mfg. P1US3—CON
`
`8216
`
`37190
`7590
`04/09/2013
`VARNUM,RIDDERING,SCHMIDT&HOWLETTLLP
`333 BRIDGE STREET, NW
`P.O. BOX 352
`GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-0352
`
`GARRETT, ERIKA P
`
`3636
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/09/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on aboVe—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`cnlapekes @ VarnumlaW.com
`patents @ VarnumlaW.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Ex. 1013, p. 191
`EX 1013' p' 191
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`13/277,778
`
`Examiner
`ERIKA GARRETT
`
`WARNCKE ET AL.
`
`A“ Unit
`3636
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IXl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/26/2013 and 3/29/2013.
`
`2a)IXl This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:I This action is non—final.
`
`3)I:l An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZl Claim(s) 1’ is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on j is/are: a)I:| accepted or b)I:l objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`12)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`13)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:I All
`
`b)I:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _.
`
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) El Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) El Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper N°(5)/Ma" DaIe- E -
`5) I:I Notice of informal Patent Application
`6) D Other:
`.
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-11)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130325
`Ex. 1013. p. 192
`Ex. 1013, p. 192
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`1.
`
`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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Yu
`
`(6554353).
`
`3.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Yu disclose a combination of a chair and a stool base
`
`portion, said chair comprising a sitting portion (114); base legs (22) attached to and
`
`depending downwardly from said sitting portion, said base legs being spaced laterally
`
`from one another; said stool base portion comprising floor engaging members and a
`
`saddle (23) located generally at a top of said base portion; said sitting portion including
`
`manually operable means for releasably engaging said chair from said base portion;
`
`said chair and said stool base portion are configurable in a first configuration in which
`
`said chair is releasably coupled to said saddle by said engaging means; and the chair
`
`and said stool being configurable in a second configuration (figure 2) wherein said chair
`
`and said stool base portion are disconnected, said chair is supported by the base legs,
`
`and said base portion is positioned as a stool for seating a second user.
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 193
`Ex. 1013, p. 193
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Yu (6554353) in view of Chiang (5893606).
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Yu disclose a combination of a chair and a stool base (20)
`
`portion, said chair comprising: an upper portion (12) providing a backrest for support for
`
`a first user; a lower portion (11) connected to said upper portion and having a sitting
`
`portion for supporting said first user in a seated position, and at least one base leg (21)
`
`located below said sitting portion; said stool base portion adapted to support said chair,
`
`and comprising a saddle (23) adapted to releasably engage said chair; said combination
`
`is configurable in a first configuration with said chair being coupled to said saddle, and
`
`said sitting portion being positioned above said saddle; said combination is manually
`
`convertible between said first configuration and a second configuration, where said
`
`second configuration comprises said chair having said at least one base leg, while still
`
`functioning as a chair for said first user, and stool functioning so that said saddle is
`
`accessible to said first user as a work surface or, alternatively, so that said saddle is
`
`accessible to a second user as a sitting surface; and said combination is manually
`
`convertible between said first configuration.
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 194
`Ex. 1013, p. 194
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the saddle further comprises a top surface (40) that faces
`
`upward, and that defines at least one of a working surface, a writing surface and a
`
`sitting surface.
`
`8.
`
`Yu fails to show the second configuration without requiring any manual
`
`manipulation of bolts, screws or nuts, or the use of any tools by said first user.
`
`9.
`
`Chiang teaches second configuration (figure 2) without requiring any manual
`
`manipulation of bolts, screws or nuts, or the use of any tools by said first user (by way of
`
`replacing Chiang elements 141 on the base of Yu, will allow a user to attach and detach
`
`the chair to and from the base without the use of tools).
`
`10.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the base configuration of Yu with the configuration of Chiang as
`
`shown on figures 1 and 2; it will provide an alternative way of attaching the chair to the
`
`stool.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 2-4,7,10,14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Yu and Chiang as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Kassai (4723813) and Massonet (3669497).
`
`12.
`
`The combination of Yu and Chiang teaches the base portion is adapted for use
`
`as casual floor rocker seating (figure 5); the connector including at least one of a tilt
`
`mechanism whereby the saddle tilts relative to the pedestal (20) and a swivel
`
`mechanism (by way of the backrest) whereby the saddle swivels relative to the pedestal
`
`and said at least one base leg is sized and structured so as to permit a rocking motion
`
`of said chair when said combination is in said second configuration.
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 195
`Ex. 1013, p. 195
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`13.
`
`The combination of Yu and Chaing fails to show claw comprises a plurality of
`
`teeth, said teeth comprising at least a first tooth and a second tooth, both of said teeth
`
`releasably engaging said saddle and providing alignment of said chair and said base
`
`portion when engaged; a latch extending downward and moving between the open and
`
`closed positions; latch ramping surface is position at the back edge.
`
`14. Massonet teaches claw with teeth and a ramping surface (6a, 7a), see figures 1
`
`and 3.
`
`15.
`
`Kassai teaches claw (figures 3-4) comprises a plurality of teeth, said teeth
`
`comprising at least a first tooth and a second tooth, both of said teeth releasably
`
`engaging said saddle and providing alignment of said chair and said base portion when
`
`engaged; a latch (18) extending downward and moving between the open and closed
`
`positions.
`
`16.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the seat with a claw, teeth and latch as taught by Kassai and
`
`Massonet, in order to clamp or attach the seat to the stool. Such would provide the
`
`biasing means, ramping surfaces, and due to the biased latch, a clicking sound may be
`
`achieved when the elements are engaged.
`
`17.
`
`Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`the combination of Yu and Chiang.
`
`18.
`
`Yu disclose a plurality of chair legs (114) radiating outwardly, for supporting said
`
`base portion; one of said chair legs to extend beneath said sitting portion, but
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 196
`Ex. 1013, p. 196
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`sufficiently short so that when said chair is mounted on said base portion, said base
`
`legs do not engage any support surface.
`
`19.
`
`The combination of Yu and Chiang fails to show a perimeter edge circumscribing
`
`said top surface and defining said top surface with a rotationally asymmetric geometry.
`
`20.
`
`It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to separation between a
`
`perimeter edge circumscribing said top surface and defining said top surface with a
`
`rotationally asymmetric geometry solves any stated problem or is for any particular
`
`purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with edge of Yu
`
`and Chiang.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`21.
`
`Claims 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 24-27 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.
`
`22.
`
`Claims 28-35 are allowed.
`
`23.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/13 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`persuasive.
`
`24.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that Yu cover plate is not used for a side
`
`table, work force or seating stool, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed
`
`invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 197
`Ex. 1013, p. 197
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
`
`If the
`
`prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the
`
`claim. The cover plate 40 and 23 can be used as a table or a work surface and a stool,
`
`see figure 2.
`
`25.
`
`In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may
`
`be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the
`
`claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so
`
`found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR
`
`International Co. v. Te/ef/ex, lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`In this case,
`
`the bolts of Yu can be replaced with pin as taught by Chiang in order to simply change
`
`from one configuration to another.
`
`Conclusion
`
`27.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 198
`Ex. 1013, p. 198
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 13/277,778
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3636
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ERIKA GARRETT whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-6859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Wednesday-
`
`Thursday 8:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, David Dunn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/E. G. /
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3636
`
`/DAVID DUNN/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 199
`Ex. 1013, p. 199
`
`

`
`Application/Control No.
`
`Search NOTES
`
`13277778
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`
`WARNCKE ET AL.
`
`
`
`ERIKA GARRETT
`
`3636
`
` -if
` —
`
`CPC- SEARCHED
`
`CPC COMBINATION SETS - SEARCHED
`
`US CLASSIFICATION SEARCHED
`
` -if
`134,130,118,
`7/13/12 S
` 3/20/13
`‘
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`
`Search Notes 2
`7/13/12 @
`
`east search
`ids Search
`inventor Search
`
`forward and backward citations
`
`INTERFERENCE SEARCH
`
`US Classl
`
`CPC S mbol
`
`US Subclass / CPC Group
`
`—
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PaE;xf.PH;)ér3Ncp.: %OflI30325
`Ex. 1013, p. 200
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, V'
`'nia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.go
`
`BIB DATA SHEET
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`13/277778
`
`APPLICANTS
`
`FIL|Ng1Ag|)_IiE 371(c)
`10/20/2011
`RULE
`
`CONFIRMATION No. 8216
`
`GROUP ART UNIT ATTORN'\|lEg DOCKET
`Sauder Mfg.
`P1 US3-CON
`
`Anthony J. Warncke, Archbold, OH;
`Jeffrey A. Jameson, Archbold, OH;
`Thomas A. Hagerty, Somerville, MA;
`*************************
`
`This application is a CON of 11/877,478 10/23/2007 PAT 8083288
`which claims benefit of 60/853,669 10/23/2006
`
`*************************
`
`**
`
`**
`
`** IF REQUIRED, FOREIGN FILING LICENSE GRANTED **
`11/07/2011
`
`3 Yes BN0
`Foreign Prioriiv ciaimed
`35 USC 119(a—d) conditions met :I Yes BNO
`Verified and
`/ERIKA P GARRETT/
`Acknowledged
`Examiner's Signature
`
`Allowance
`D Met after
`eg
`Initials
`
`ADDRESS
`
`STATE on
`
`SHEETS
`
`TOTAL
`
`INDEPENDENT
`
`O H
`
`12
`
`4
`
`VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT LLP
`333 BRIDGE STREET, NW
`P.O. BOX 352
`GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-0352
`UNITED STATES
`
`CHAIR WITH COUPLING COMPANION STOOL BASE
`
`'F:;"E'i;NEci'V':E'E[,E No.
`
`FEES: Authorit has been iven in Pa er
`
`y to chargeg/credit DEIEOSIT ACCOUNT
`for following:
`
`II All Fees
`
`:1 1.16 Fees (Filing)
`
`3 ‘-17 Fees (P‘°CeSS‘“9 Ext of time)
`II 1.18 Fees (Issue)
`
`:1 Other
`
`II Credit
`
`BIB (Rev. 05/07).
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 201
`Ex. 1013, p. 201
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/277,778
`
`10/20/2011
`
`Anthony J. Warncke
`
`Sauder Mfg. P1US3—CON
`
`8216
`
`37190
`7590
`05/23/2013
`VARNUM,RIDDERING,SCHMIDT&HOWLETTLLP
`333 BRIDGE STREET, NW
`P.O. BOX 352
`GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-0352
`
`GARRETT, ERIKA P
`
`3636
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/23/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on aboVe—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patents @ VarnumlaW.com
`cwcarr @ Varnumlaw .com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Ex. 1013, p. 202
`EX 1013' p' 202
`
`

`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`13/277,778
`_
`Examiner
`
`WARNCKE ET AL.
`_
`Art Unit
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`
`
`ERIKA GARRETT 3636
`
`All participants (applicant, app|icant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) ERIKA GARRETT.
`
`(2) -
`
`Date of Interview: 15 May 2013.
`
`(3) Tom Lockhart.
`
`(4)?-
`
`Type:
`
`I:I Video Conference
`IX] Telephonic
`I] Personal [copy given to: El applicant
`
`El app|icant’s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[I Yes
`
`IX] No.
`
`I:|112 EI102 IXI103 I:IOthers
`I:I101
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1 4 8 and 20.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Yu & Chiang.
`
`Substance of Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied references etc...)
`
`The agglicant discussed the claimed invention, sgecificallz with resgect to claims 4, 8, and 20. The PTO noted in the
`102 reiection of claim 20, the base legs of the sitting Qortion should have been indentified as element 125 (as in Figure
`2). The agglicant will consider amending claims 1 & 20 to recite that the legs of the chair are rockers.
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised.
`
`I:| Attachment
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`/DAVID DUNN/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
`
`
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20130515
`Ex. 1013. p. 203
`Ex. 1013, p. 203
`
`

`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face—to—face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be made of record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must be filed bythe applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so.
`It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the
`“Contents” section of the file wrapper.
`In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview.
`In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`—Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`— Name of applicant
`— Name of examiner
`— Date of interview
`—Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`— Name of participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`—An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`—An identification of the specific prior art discussed
`— An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`—The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substance of the interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview.
`accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`If the record is not complete and
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner's version of the
`statement attributed to him or her.
`If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, “Interview Record OK” on the
`paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 204
`Ex. 1013, p. 204
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant(s):
`
`WARNCKE ET AL.
`
`For:
`
`CHAIR WITH COUPLING COMPANION STOOL BASE
`
`Application No.:
`
`13/277,778
`
`Examiner:
`
`Erika Garrett
`
`Filed:
`
`October 20, 2011
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3636
`
`Our Ref:
`
`Sauder Manufacturing P lUS3-CON Confirm No:
`
`8216
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ENTRY OF
`AMENDMENTS UNDER 3 C.F.R. § 1.116 AND
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`With respect to the above-identified patent application, the Examiner issued a Final
`
`Office Action dated April 9, 2013. The Applicants’ attorney held a telephone conference with
`
`the Examiner and the Examiner's supervisor on May 15, 2013. Claims 1, 4, 8 and 20 were
`
`discussed during the telephone interview, along with discussion of prior art references cited by
`
`the Examiner. The Applicants‘ attorney believes that certain agreements were reached, at least in
`
`part, regarding the subject matter of the claims and certain amendments that would be made to
`
`the claims by the Applicants, in accordance with the substance of the telephone interview. The
`
`Applicants‘ attorney also believes that the Examiner and the Examiner's supervisor graciously
`
`agreed to reconsider the claims, subject to amendments made by the Applicants.
`
`In view of the
`
`foregoing, the Applicants respectfully request reconsideration by the Examiner, and respectfully
`
`submit the following:
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 205
`Ex. 1013, p. 205
`
`

`
`Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 of this Response; and
`
`General Remarks begin on page 9 of this Response.
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 206
`Ex. 1013, p. 206
`
`

`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A combination of a chair and a stool base portion, said chair
`
`comprising:
`
`an upper portion providing a backrest for support for a first user;
`
`a lower portion connected to said upper portion and having a sitting portion for
`
`supporting said first user in a seatedposition
`
`Peftiefl;
`
`said stool base portion adapted to support said chair, and comprising a saddle adapted to
`
`releasably engage said chair;
`
`said combination is configurable in a first configuration with said chair being coupled to
`
`said saddle, and said sitting portion being positioned above said saddle;
`
`said combination is manually convertible between said first configuration and a second
`
`configuration, where said second configuration comprises said chair
`
`l still functioning as a chair for said first user, and said stool functioning so that said
`
`saddle is accessible to said first user as a work surface or, alternatively, so that said saddle is
`
`accessible to a second user as a sitting surface; and
`
`said combination further comprises an assembly positioned below said sitting portion and
`
`forming at least a pair of base legs which are structured so as to function as rockers for said chair
`
`when said combination is in said second configuratione,
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 207
`Ex. 1013, p. 207
`
`

`
`2.
`
`(Currently Amended) The combination of a chair and a stool base portion in
`
`accordance with claim 1, characterized in that:
`
`said lower portion comprises a first portion near said upper portion, and a second portion
`
`spaced away from said first portion . -
`
`portion; and
`
`
`
`3.
`
`- Canceled.
`
`4.
`
`- Canceled.
`
`5.
`
`(Original) The combination of a chair and a stool base portion in accordance with
`
`claim 1, characterized in that the saddle further comprises a top surface that faces upward, and
`
`that defines at least one of a working surface, a writing surface and a sitting surface.
`
`6.
`
`(Currently Amended) The combination of a chair and a stool base portion in
`
`accordance with claim 2, characterized in that:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013. p. 208
`Ex. 1013, p. 208
`
`

`
`the saddle further comprises a top surface and a perimeter edge incorporating the back
`
`and front edges, circumscribing the top surface and defining the top surface with a rotationally
`
`asymmetric geometry; and
`
`the lower portion receptacle and the saddle perimeter edge correspond with one another
`
`so that the base couples with the frame only in