DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The instant application contains claims directed to the following distinct inventions:
Invention I (claims 11-16), drawn to a multi-tiered device, classified in 108/27 (A47B47/0075); and
Invention II (claims 17-18), drawn to a method of assembly, classified in 312/352 (A47B97/00). Note that method claim 18 is dependent from canceled claimed 9 and is therefore interpreted to be depended on method claim 17, which is the only other method claim.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (e.g., a method claim comprising the steps of placing the rotatable panel at a non-vertical angle from the shelf and shifting the rotatable panel to align the slot in the rotatable panel with the shelf slot; placing the rotatable panel on the ground in a non-leveled position; and/or placing the non-ratable panel such that it is in contact with the shelf and/or rotatable panels which are not required by the product claim 11). Additionally, in this instant case the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product (e.g. a muti-tier device with multiple shelf slots rather that a single slot required by claim 11)
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: As noted above, method claims 17-18 are classified in 312/352 (A47B97/00), in contrast with apparatus claims 11-16, which are classified in 108/27 (A47B47/0075). Each group is classified in a separate area. Therefore, the class/subclass search required to examine the apparatus claims would be different from the class/subclass search required to examine the method claims.
In addition, claims 17-18 recite specific method steps such as placing the rotatable panel in a vertical position; linear motion; inserting one panel into another; aligning the rotatable panel slot with the shelf slot, placing the non-rotatable not in contact with the shelf and rotatable panels. Such steps are not present in the apparatus claims. Searching for the components recited in the apparatus claims would not require searching for the steps mentioned above in the method claims. Therefore, examining method claims 17-18 as well as apparatus claims 11-16 would impose a serious search burden.
Moreover, since the device to be assembled in claims 17-18 can be made of wood, metal, plastic, or glass (see p. 1 of the written description of the instant application), classes specific to processes involving metal (class 29), wood (class 144), plastic (class 264), and glass (class 65) would also have to be searched. Hence, examination of method claims 17-18 would greatly expand the field of search, and would consequently impose a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of product claims 11-16, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, method claims 17-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it employs legal terminology, specifically, “invention's”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 12-16, each of these claims depends from a claim that is now cancelled. This dependency renders the scope of these claims unclear. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering each of these claims to depend from claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the term “snug” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snug” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp (7856772) in view of Perrett (AU2009100557).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Culp teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a multi-tier structure device comprising; one or more shelf (A in Fig. 7 Annotated), each shelf having a single shelf slot that has an open end at the outer perimeter of the shelf (implied by col. 10, lines 59-60 & Fig. 4a); two or more panels (B-C), including at least one rotatable panel (B, which is rotatable about a horizontal axis parallel to the slots in A-C & E, and could also be rotated prior to insertion into said slots) that has a slot and a remaining portion along its slot (implied by col. 10, lines 59-60 & Fig. 4a), and one non-rotatable panel (C or E) that either has a slot and a remaining portion along its slot (implied by col. 10, lines 60-61 & Fig. 4b) or no slot at all, wherein the slot in the both rotatable and non-rotatable panel is disposed horizontally when the panel is assembled (implied by Figs. 4a-4b & 7). Culp fail(s) to teach a shelf slot having a cutout. However, Perrett teaches a single shelf slot (32) that has an open end (Fig. 3) at the outer perimeter of a shelf (14) and terminates into a cutout (52) inside the shelf at the other end (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a shelf slot, as taught by Perrett, for the shelf slot of Culp, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively connect the shelf to a panel while reducing the weight of the shelf, and because such outcomes would have been predictable results of such a substitution of one known connecting means for another.
Regarding claim 12, Culp teaches a top (D) that can be attached to and removed from the upper portion of the panels (B-C) assembled, wherein the need for the top depends on the function of the multi-tier device.
Regarding claim 13, Culp as modified teaches a structure wherein open ends of the slot in the shelves (710 of Culp) must be oriented in the same way during assembly (implied by Fig. 10 of Culp), while the size of the cutout inside the shelf and the length of the slot in the shelf can be inconsistent (as in Fig. 3 of Perrett), wherein the size of the cutout inside the shelf should be sufficient to accommodate the remaining portion of the slot in the rotatable panel (implied by col. 10, lines 59-61 of Culp), ensuring the rotatable panel is able to rotate freely to the configured position (note that, given ordinary manufacturing tolerances, there would be at least some play in the joints between A-D of Culp, which would permit at least some relative rotation about horizontal axes parallel to the directions of the slots) and the shape of the cutout inside the shelves should be proportionally consistent to ensure a secure and snug fit when assembled (col. 10, lines 29-34 of Culp).
Regarding claim 14, Culp teaches a structure wherein a slot in both the rotatable panel (B) and the non-rotatable panel (C) has an open end at the panel edge and closed end inside the panel (implied by Figs. 4b & 4d), while the length of the slot in the panel can be inconsistent when the panel has more than one slot and the slots in the rotatable panel or the non-rotatable panel for the same shelf have the same height (implied by Figs. 4b, 4d, & 7), wherein the number of slots in the rotatable panel or the non-rotatable panel equals the number of shelves configured for interlocking (implied by Figs. 4b, 4d, & 7).
Regarding claim 15, Culp teaches a rotatable panel (B) and a non-rotatable panel (C) that are not required to be identical in shape, size, or structure, provided that the panels could form a frame when the panels assembled, upon which the top can be placed and attached (see Figs. 4b, 4d, & 7).
Regarding claim 16, Culp teaches a rotatable panel (B) that attached to the non-rotatable panel (E) along an axis (i.e., axis running along the length of B) that goes through the cutout of the shelf (A) to form the said frame, wherein the surface of the rotatable panel (B) is disposed at a configured angle (Fig. 7) with the surface of the non-rotatable panel (E), that secure and support the shelf (A) and the top (D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached on (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637