DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2011/0123762 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Chiang discloses a furniture connector (31-34) for establishing attachment between two pre- manufactured furniture parts (1-2), said furniture connector comprising
a screw (31-33), and
a washer (34) configured to receive the screw and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body (see Fig. 1) that curves around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body (1), and a through hole arranged in said plate (see Fig. 2).
Chiang fails to disclose as claimed that the furniture parts are made at least partly of rattan.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture connector of Chiang, such that it comprises the first and second furniture parts being at least partly made of rattan, in order to provide a strong and functional material for construction situations involving bamboo being scarce or more expensive than a rattan alternative.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18, 24-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2011/0123762 A1) in view of Lemuhot (FR 917003 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses a furniture connector for establishing attachment between two pre-manufactured furniture parts (see Fig. 2), said furniture connector comprising
a screw (31-33), and
a washer (34) configured to receive the screw and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body that curves (see Figs. 1-2) configured to curve around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body (1) and having a radius (see Fig. 1), and a through hole arranged in said plate (see Figs. 1-2).
Chiang fails to disclose as claimed wherein the periphery of said through hole extends into a truncated cone in a direction away from said plate.
However, Lemuhot teaches a washer (see Fig. 4) wherein the periphery of said through hole (2a in Fig. 4) extends into a truncated cone (see Fig. 4) in a direction away from said plate (see Fig. 4), in order to provide a washer having an opening that can accommodate the head of a fastener inserted therein such that the head is flush mounted, providing less snags and an aesthetically pleasing design.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washer Chiang, with Lemuhot, such that it comprises the washer truncated cone recess of Lemuhot, in order to provide a washer having an opening that can accommodate the head of a fastener inserted therein such that the head is flush mounted, providing less snags and an aesthetically pleasing design.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the plate (34 of Chiang) of the washer (34 of Chiang) is circular, rectangular, square, triangular or elliptical (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a plate (34 of Chiang) having a diameter (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang), but fails to teach as claimed wherein the diameter of the plate is between 1.5 and 4 cm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. plate diameter) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises a plate with a diameter between 1.5 and 4 cm, in order to provide a washer that sufficient in diameter to cover the necessary opening on Chiang without comprising a waste of material and unnecessary weight.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a truncated cone (2a in Fig. 4 of Lemuhot) having an apex angle, but fails to teach as claimed that the apex angle of the truncated cone of the washer is between 40 degrees and 80 degrees.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. apex angle) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the apex angle of the truncated cone of the washer being between 40 degrees and 80 degrees, in order to provide a washer that allows the fastener to be countersunk within the washer without the fastener passing through the washer unobscured by the washer.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a washer (34 of Chiang) comprising a truncated cone (2a in Fig. 4 of Lemuhot) having a length, but fails to teach as claimed that the length of the truncated cone of the washer is between 2 and 10 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. truncated cone length) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the length of the truncated cone of the washer being between 2 and 10 mm, in order to provide a truncated cone sufficient to accept and protect the entire head of the fastener countersunk therein.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a plate (34 of Chiang) having a radius, but fails to teach as claimed that the radius of the plate is between 5 and 35 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. plate radius) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the radius of the plate being between 5 and 35 mm, in order to provide a washer that sufficient in radius to cover the necessary opening on Chiang without comprising a waste of material and unnecessary weight.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the screw (31-33 of Chiang) comprises a screw head (32 of Chiang), a threaded portion (33 of Chiang), and a non-threaded portion (31 of Chiang) arranged between the screw head and the threaded portion (see Fig. 1 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the screw head (32 of Chiang) is countersunk (see example of countersunk screw taught by Lemuhot in Fig. 6 of Lemuhot).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a non-threaded portion (31 of Chiang), but fails to teach as claimed that the length of the non-threaded portion is between 5 and 30 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. non-threaded length) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises a non-threaded portion length being between 5 and 30 mm, in order to provide a screw having sufficient length without being exceedingly long and allowing the screw to be countersunk when fully fastened.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a screw (31-33 of Chiang) having a thread pitch (see Fig. 1 of Chiang), but fails to teach as claimed wherein the thread pitch of the threaded portion of the screw is between 2 and 4 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. thread pitch) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises a screw thread pitch being between 2 and 4mm, in order to provide a fastener having sufficiently aggressive threads without comprising excess weight from the threads.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a screw (31-33 of Chiang) having a major thread diameter (see Fig. 1 of Chiang), but fails to teach as claimed that the major diameter of the threads of the screw is between 4 and 8 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. thread major diameter) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the thread major diameter being between 4 and 8 mm, in order to provide threads that interact with the receiving member of Chiang without requiring excessive force.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a screw (31-33 of Chiang) having a minor thread diameter (see Fig. 1 of Chiang), but fails to teach as claimed that the minor diameter of the threads of the screw is between 3 and 6 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. thread minor diameter) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the thread minor diameter being between 3 and 6 mm, in order to provide a thread minor diameter that prevents the threads from being fragile due to lack of structural support.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a kit for forming a furniture joint (see Fig. 1 of Chiang), the kit comprising a furniture connector according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), a first furniture part (1 of Chiang), and a second furniture part (2 of Chiang), wherein the screw of the furniture connector is arranged to be inserted in a pre- drilled hole (11-12 of Chiang) of the first furniture part and to be screwed into a pre-drilled hole of the second furniture part (22-23 of Chiang and A in annotated Figure 2 below), thereby attaching the first furniture part to the second furniture part (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of pre-drilled hole are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 13 is that the hole is capable of being pre-drilled.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole (11-12 of Chiang) of the first furniture part (1 of Chiang) is extending in a radial direction of a rounded portion of the first furniture part (see Fig. 1 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the screw (31-33 of Chiang) is extending in the radial direction of a rounded portion (see Fig. 1 of Chiang) of the first furniture part (1 of Chiang), the rounded portion being tilted an angle (B in annotated Figure 1 below) from being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the screw (see Fig. 1 of Chiang and B in annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole of the second furniture part (22-23 of Chiang and A in annotated Figure 2 above) is extending in a radial direction of a rounded part (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang) of the second furniture part (2 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole of the second furniture part (22-23 of Chiang and A in annotated Figure 2 above) is extending in an axial direction (see Fig. 2 of Chiang) of the second furniture part (2 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the second furniture part (2 of Chiang) is provided with a dowel (4 of Chiang) extending across the path of the pre-drilled hole (22-23 of Chiang and A in annotated Figure 2 above) of the second furniture part (see Fig. 2 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein at least one of said first furniture part (1 of Chiang) and said second furniture part (2 of Chiang) is made of bamboo, but fails to teach as claimed that the first and second furniture parts are at least partly made of rattan.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, such that it comprises the first and second furniture parts being at least partly made of rattan, in order to provide a strong and functional material for construction situations involving bamboo being scarce or more expensive than a rattan alternative.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a piece of furniture (see paragraph [0002]), comprising at least one kit for forming a furniture joint according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the first (1 of Chiang) and/or the second (2 of Chaing) furniture part forms part of a pre-manufactured furniture module (see paragraph [0003] of Chiang), and wherein the furniture module has a planar shape (see NOTE below).
NOTE: See in Figs. 1-2 of Chiang that the furniture parts are assembled and extend within a plane. Therefore, the module has a planar shape.
Regarding claim 29, Chiang discloses a method for manufacturing a piece of furniture (see paragraph [0002] of Chiang) suitable for being flat-packed, comprising providing at least two pre-manufactured furniture modules (1-2 of Chiang), wherein at least one furniture module comprises a first furniture part (1 of Chiang), and at least one furniture module comprises a second furniture part (2 of Chiang), and providing at least one furniture connector (31-34 of Chiang), wherein said furniture connector comprises a screw (31-33 of Chiang), and a washer (34 of Chiang) configured to receive the screw (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang) and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body that curves (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang) around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body (1 of Chiang), and a through hole arranged in said plate (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang), wherein said first and second furniture parts are configured to be connected by means of said at least one furniture connector (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang).
Chiang fails to disclose wherein the periphery of said through hole extends into a truncated cone in a direction away from said plate.
However, Lemuhot teaches a washer (see Fig. 4) wherein the periphery of said through hole (2a in Fig. 4) extends into a truncated cone (see Fig. 4) in a direction away from said plate (see Fig. 4), in order to provide a washer having an opening that can accommodate the head of a fastener inserted therein such that the head is flush mounted, providing less snags and an aesthetically pleasing design.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washer of Chiang, with Lemuhot, such that it comprises the washer truncated cone recess of Lemuhot, in order to provide a washer having an opening that can accommodate the head of a fastener inserted therein such that the head is flush mounted, providing less snags and an aesthetically pleasing design.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the plate (34 of Chiang) has a bent curvature (see Fig. 1 of Chiang) with the radius similar to that of the furniture part (1 of Chiang) to which the furniture connector is to be mounted (see Fig. 1 of Chiang).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2011/0123762 A1) and Lemuhot (FR 917003 A), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Meicke (US 6,179,510 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole (11-12 of Chiang) of the first furniture part (1 of Chiang) has an exterior end (11 of Chiang) arranged to be opposite to the second furniture part (see Fig. 1 of Chiang); and a cone of the washer (2a of Lemuhot).
The combination of Chiang and Lemuhot fails to teach as claimed that pre-drilled hole of the first furniture part opposite the second furniture part has a conical shape, and wherein the cone of the washer is configured to be received by the exterior end of the pre-drilled hole of the first furniture part.
However, Meicke teaches an exterior hole of a first part having a conical shape (26 in Fig. 11) to receive an angled washer member (see Fig. 3), in order to further assist in insertion and alignment of components (see Column 5 lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, with Meicke, such that it comprises the conical shaped exterior hole entrance of Meicke on the first part of Chiang, in order to further assist in insertion and alignment of components (see Column 5 lines 1-5 of Meicke).
Claim(s) 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2011/0123762 A1) and Lemuhot (FR 917003 A), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of McGuire (US 3,297,063 A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole of the second furniture part (22-23 of Chiang and A in annotated Figure 2 above) extends from an axial end of the second furniture part (2 of Chiang, see Fig. 2 of Chiang). The combination of Chiang and Lemuhot fails to teach as claimed that said axial end of the second furniture part has a conical shape.
However, McGuire teaches a furniture joint comprising first (12) and second (10) furniture parts, wherein the second furniture part comprises a conical shape (13, see Column 2 lines 55-57), in order to provide a joint that allows the second furniture part to be easily inserted within the abutting first furniture part while still providing a friction fit once fully inserted as such a joint increases the strength and durability of the furniture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, with McGuire, such that Chiang comprises the conical insertion and receiving portions of McGuire, in order to provide a joint that allows the second furniture part to be easily inserted within the abutting first furniture part while still providing a friction fit once fully inserted as such a joint increases the strength and durability of the furniture.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chiang, Lemuhot, and McGuire teaches wherein the pre-drilled hole of the first furniture part (11-12 of Chiang) has an interior end arranged adjacent to the second furniture part (2 of Chiang) and having a conical shape (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire), and wherein the axial end of the second furniture part is arranged to be at least partly received by the interior end of the pre- drilled hole of the first furniture part (1 of Chiang, see tapered connection taught by McGuire in Fig. 4 of McGuire).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Chiang, Lemuhot, and McGuire teaches wherein a conical friction engagement (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire) is provided between the conically shaped (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire) axial end of the second furniture part (2 of Chiang) and the conically shaped interior end of the pre-drilled hole (11-12 of Chiang) of the first furniture part (1 of Chiang).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Chiang, Lemuhot, and McGuire teaches wherein the conically shaped (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire) axial end of the second furniture part (2 of Chiang) and the conically shaped (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire) interior end of the pre-drilled hole of the first furniture part (11-12 of Chiang) are designed such that after mounting (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang), an axial gap is provided between the edge of the axial end and the inner end of the interior end (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chiang, Lemuhot, and McGuire teaches an axial gap (taught by McGuire, see Fig. 4 of McGuire) between the first (1 of Chiang) and second (2 of Chiang) parts having an axial length (see Fig. 4 of McGuire), but fails to teach that the axial length of the axial gap is in the range of 0.5-4 mm.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. axial gap length) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang, Lemuhot, and McGuire, such that it comprises an axial gap being between 0.5-4 mm, in order to provide an axial gap that allows for further tightening when materials shrink or expand while further reducing excessive wasted space.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2011/0123762 A1) and Lemuhot (FR 917003 A), as applied to claim 26, and further in view of Ervin (US 4,261,667 A)
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot teaches a pre-manufactured furniture module (see Figs. 1-2 of Chiang), wherein the at least one furniture module comprises a first furniture part (1 of Chiang), and at least one furniture module comprises a second furniture part (2 of Chiang).
The combination of Chiang and Lemuhot fails to teach as claimed comprising a plurality of pre-manufactured furniture modules forming a seat, a back piece, and two side pieces, respectively, and wherein at least one furniture module comprises a first furniture part, and at least one furniture module comprises a second furniture part.
However, Ervin teaches that it is well known to use abutted joints in furniture (see Fig. 1) and further teaches a plurality of pre-manufactured furniture modules (see Fig. 1) each having two elongated members perpendicularly mounted (see Figs. 1, 3, and 5) forming a seat (see Fig. 1), a back piece (see Fig. 1), and two side pieces (see Fig. 1), respectively, in order to provide a functional and strong chair for a consumer or user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chiang and Lemuhot, with Ervin, such that the furniture module of Chiang is used in a chair assembly as taught by Ervin, in order to provide a functional and strong chair for a consumer or user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, pages 2-3, recite: “…Independent claim 31 is directed at a furniture connector for establishing attachment between two pre-manufactured furniture parts made at least partly of rattan, said furniture connector comprising: a screw, and a washer configured to receive the screw and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body that curves around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body, and a through hole arranged in said plate. Chiang fails to disclose a rattan assembly. Instead, Chiang describes a furniture assembly comprising bamboo stalks rather than parts made of rattan. See Chaing at, for example, paragraph [0001]. Neither the term "rattan" nor any structure comprising parts made at least partly of rattan is disclosed or suggested in Chiang. Accordingly, it is submitted that claim 31 is novel over Chiang… It is submitted that claim 31 is not anticipated by Chiang, and withdrawal of this rejection is requested. Furthermore, it is submitted that claim 31 would not have been obvious from Chiang…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen above, the rejection of claim 31 is now a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Further, the new rejection of claim 31 relies upon In re Leshin to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 3, recites: “…It is pointed out that claim 25 is directed at a kit comprising a furniture connector of claim 1 and wherein "at least one of said first furniture part and said second furniture part is at least partly made of rattan…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear as to what Applicant is attempting to argue in this statement. Therefore, the above noted arguments are moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 4, recites: “…The assembly of Lemuhot is not intended to be used for assembling two pre-manufactured furniture parts…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lemuhot is simply used to teach a washer shape onto the furniture connector of Chiang. Accordingly, there is no teaching within Lemuhot that would hinder such a prior art combination.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 5, recites: “…A person skilled in the art would therefore recognize that bamboo and rattan exhibit fundamentally different structural properties. Because the interaction between a fastener and the substrate depends directly on the properties of the material, a fastening arrangement optimized for bamboo cannot be expected to function for rattan…Bamboo assemblies also address different problems associated with fastening, such as preventing wall collapse and longitudinal splitting, as can be seen in Fig. 3 and is further disclosed in paragraph [0002] of Chiang. In contrast, rattan presents challenges such as compression of the solid fibers and deformation under clamping loads...”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above In re Leshin sets forth that it is obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Accordingly, modifying the cylindrical bamboo material of Chiang such that it is at least partially made of rattan would not be problematic. Further, it is understood that bamboo and rattan both comprise structural properties similar enough to produce furniture from either material.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 5, recites: “…Furthermore, the system of Chiang could not operate with a truncated cone, as there is no room for such an arrangement. If a truncated cone was added to the washer of Chiang, the resulting washer would not be able engage properly with the bamboo stalk, thereby rendering the modified washer useless for its intended purpose. Moreover, the truncated conical portion is not suitable for bamboo. The washer of Chiang is described in paragraph [0014] as being configured in this way to distribute the force imparted from the head 32 to an area surrounding the first hole 11. Modifying the washer of Chiang with the truncated conical portion would alter the bearing geometry of the washer against the bamboo and add internal forces to the fragile dense bamboo shell. Clamping forces would thereby no longer be distributed in the manner intended by Chiang, thereby risking to harm and split the bamboo stalks…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no clear reason as to why there is “no room for such an arrangement”. Further, washers with or without a truncated cone both act to distribute forces. Therefore, even with a truncated cone the washer would distribute forces. Lastly, Applicant is discussing internal forces, clamping forces, and distribution of forces, all of which are not claimed.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 5, recites: “…Even if one having ordinary skill in the art were to start with Chiang, the skilled person would not turn to Lemuhot. Lemuhot does not relate to assembly of pre-manufactured furniture parts, but to assembly of elements with non-parallel external faces and does not mention anything regarding rounded surfaces…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lemuhot is relied upon for the shape of a washer and not for a pre-manufactured furniture part assembly. Accordingly, Chiang teaches the pre-manufactured furniture parts.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 6, recites: “…It is pointed out that Meicke disclose a rapid connect/disconnect system employed on a stabilizer for an archery bow. See Meicke at, for example, column 2, line 65 though column 3, line 8. It is submitted that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have received a suggestion from Meicke regarding the modification of the bamboo assembly according to Chiang…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Meicke is used to teach a conical shape of a hole of an object rather than an archery bow. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 7, recites: “…It is submitted that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have received a suggestion from McGuire regarding the modification of the bamboo assembly according to Chiang…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Applicant’s arguments against a teaching made of rattan are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026, page 7, recites: “…It is submitted that Ervin fails to disclose and would not have suggested the "furniture connector comprising a screw, and a washer configured to receive the screw and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body that curves around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body, and a through hole arranged in said plate, wherein the periphery of said through hole extends into a truncated cone in a direction away from said plate" according to claim 28…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 28 does not claim a screw, and a washer configured to receive the screw and comprising a plate bent to form a semi-cylindrical body that curves around an outer cylindrical portion of a cylindrical body, and a through hole arranged in said plate, wherein the periphery of said through hole extends into a truncated cone.
Conclusion
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 shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights