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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steiner et al (4085789).
Steiner et al figures 1, 7, shows a screen system for use with an article of furniture, the screen system comprising: a screen(14) having an upper edge and a lower edge defining a screen height therebetween, a left side edge and a right side edge defining a screen length therebetween, and an interior surface and an exterior surface defining a screen thickness therebetween, the screen configured to provide structure in the direction of the screen height (inherently so as the material of the screen forms a structure by itself), and having a degree of flexibility in the direction of the screen thickness, the screen including a plurality of attachment hooks(75, 15, 16) projecting from the interior surface, the plurality of attachment hooks spaced apart along the screen length; and a rail(18, 11) configured to be affixed to the article of furniture, the rail having an upper rail edge and a lower rail edge, wherein the attachment hooks hook onto the rail to support the screen on the rail, the attachment hooks slidable along the rail to enable adjustment of the position of the screen along the rail in the direction of the screen length.
Per claim 2, Steiner et al further shows the screen defines a plurality of openings extending through the screen thickness, the openings spaced apart along the screen length, and wherein the attachment hooks are formed separately from the screen, and each hook is inserted through a corresponding one of the openings such that it is positioned between the upper and lower edges of the screen, the screen extending outwardly beyond the hooks to provide a degree of privacy at least one of above and below the hooks (inherently so as the hooks are attached at locations away from the edges.
Per claim 3, Steiner et al further shows each attachment hook includes a base and a hook projecting from the base.
Per claim 4, Steiner et al further shows at least one dimension of the base is greater than at least one dimension of the corresponding opening such that the base retains the attachment hook in the corresponding opening (inherently so as the hook is used to attach the screen to the rail).
Per claim 14, Steiner further shows an article of furniture with a screen, the article of furniture comprising: a structural component(22) having a perimeter edge;
a rail(18, 11, 20, 21, 13) attached to a portion of the perimeter edge, the rail having at least one of an upper rail edge and a lower rail edge; a screen(14) including a main body and a plurality of attachment hooks(15, 16, 75), the main body having an interior surface, an exterior surface, an upper screen edge, a lower screen edge, and opposing lateral screen edges extending between the upper screen edge and the lower screen edge, the attachment hooks spaced apart between the opposing lateral screen edges and positioned between the upper screen edge and the lower screen edge,
, with each attachment hook projecting outwardly from the interior surface of the screen; and wherein the screen is slidable along the rail via the attachment hooks engaging the rail and being slidable along the rail, and at least one of the upper screen edge extends upwardly beyond the upper rail edge or the lower screen edge extends downwardly beyond the lower rail edge to provide a degree of privacy above or below the rail.
Per claim 15, Steiner further shows the rail has a curved profile(at 21), and the screen is flexible to enable the screen to match the curved profile as the screen is slid along the rail.
Per claim 16, Steiner further shows the screen defines a plurality of openings spaced apart between the opposing lateral edges, and wherein the attachment hooks are separately inserted through the openings, with each attachment hook inserted through an associated one of the openings.
Per claim 17, Steiner further shows the perimeter edge of the article of furniture defines an opening for an internal cavity9between the 22, 17) of the article of furniture, the screen movable along the rail between a first position in which the screen covers the opening to the internal cavity and a second position in which the screen does not cover at least a portion of the opening to provide access to the internal cavity.
Per claim 18, Steiner further shows the perimeter edge includes an upper portion and a lower portion, and wherein the rail includes an upper rail portion extending along the upper portion of the perimeter edge, and a lower rail portion extending along the lower portion of the perimeter edge, the attachment hooks including an upper series of attachment hooks engaging the upper rail portion and a lower series of attachment hooks engaging the lower rail portion.
Per claim 19, Steiner further shows the upper rail portion has an upper rail edge, and the lower rail portion has a lower rail edge, the upper series of attachment hooks engaging the upper rail edge of the upper rail portion, and the lower series of attachment hooks engaging the lower rail edge of the lower rail portion.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner.
Steiner shows all the claimed limitations except for the screen and the attachment hooks are formed from PET.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steiner’s structures to show the screen and the attachment hooks are formed from PET with a reasonable expectation of success since 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, 125 USPQ 416; one having ordinary skill thus would have found it obvious to use any readily available material meeting the suitability requirements to form the screen and hooks as long as it functions with the needed strength and durability as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 allowed.
Prior art does not show a plurality of hooks positioned entirely between the upper edge and the lower edge of the screen body in combination with other claimed limitations.
Claims 5-6, 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.
Per claims 5-6, prior art does not provide sufficient motivation to modify Steiner’s structures to show the pair of hooks and the base forming a C-shape in combination with other claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-6, 14-20, examiner would like to state the followings. Steiner shows the claimed screen. The screen is flexible, and due to the thinness of the screen, the degree of flexibility in the direction of screen thickness is greater than in the direction of the screen height. As the screen is denser in the height direction, it is less flexible than the flexing in the thickness direction. The reference also shows the added limitations to “ at least one of the upper screen edge…above or below…”as set forth above. The reference shows all the claimed limitations and able to function as claimed. The claims are thus reasonably rejected as 102.
With respect to the 103 rejection, Steiner as modified shows the claimed limitations and the material is able to function as needed. Furthermore, as pointed out in the office action, to use any readily available material meeting the suitability requirements to form the screen and hooks would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as long as it functions with the needed strength and durability as needed.
The rejections are thus reasonable as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different screen device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633