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
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 –
(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.
2. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand).
With respect to claim 1, Ferdinand shows a furniture assembly (10, Fig.1), comprising: a plurality of main panels (20, 30, 40, 50) interconnected to each other via a first fastening mechanism (60, Fig.3) and a second fastening mechanism (29, 37, Fig.3); wherein the first fastening mechanism includes one or more pinholes (58, FIg.3) on at least one of the main panels (50) and one or more pins (60) extended from at least one of the main panels (30) to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary pinholes (58, Col.4 lines 45-50); wherein the second fastening mechanism includes one or more groove channels (29, Fig.2) on at least one of the main panels (20) and one or more projecting tongue profiles (37) extended from at least one of the main panels (30) to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary groove channels (29, Col.3 line 50-Col.3 line 52); and wherein at least one groove channel (29) of the second fastening mechanism is dividable along its longitudinal extent into a first section (at X in Fig.4) and a second section (at Y, FIg.4), whereby the first section (X), has a cross-sectional area wider than the second section (Y; “the mortise 29 is widest at the bottom margin 26 of the front panel 20 and is narrower at the top margin 25 of the front panel 20”. This is indicated by the dimension X in Fig.4 at the bottom of the mortise 29 and by the smaller dimension Y at the top of the mortise 29”), is configured to initially receive one portion of the projecting tongue profile (37) with a wider tolerance of insertion angles than the second section and to subsequently guide the projecting tongue profile to slide towards the second section at a designated orientation; wherein the portion of the projecting tongue profile (37), during insertion into a corresponding groove channel, passes through the first section (X) in order to reach the second section (Y; “The sides of each tenon 37 are tapered inwardly along the vertical length of the tenon…each tenon 37 is tapered at the same constant angle as the mortise taper angle…the bottom of the tenon, beginning just above the side panel channel 39, is wider than the top of the tenon adjacent the side panel top margin 33”).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the first and second fastening mechanisms (60, 29 and 37) are deployed on a drawer unit of the furniture assembly (10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 2,510,243 (Mohring).
With respect to claim 2, Ferdinand shows wherein at least one of the projecting tongue profiles (37) has a dovetail tongue configuration, the second section of the groove channel (29) is a dovetail groove configuration (Fig.2, Fig.3) that is complimentary to the dovetail tongue configuration. Ferdinand doesn’t show the first section of the channel is a square groove configuration. Mohring shows a groove channel (59, 62, Fig.12) having a first section (62) having a square groove configuration (Col.4 lines 10-13) and a second section (59) having a dovetail groove configuration complimentary to the dovetail tongue configuration (60; Col.4 lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first section of Ferdinand, such that it has a square groove configuration, such as taught by Mohring, in order to make it easier for the tongue profile to be initially inserted within the groove channel before being locked into the second section.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 3,527,486 (Gamp).
With respect to claim 3, Ferdinand doesn’t show each pin includes serrated circular protrusions. Gamp shows a pin (3, Fig.1, Fig.2) of the first fastening mechanism includes a first portion (4, Fig.2) and a second portion (5, Fig.2), both of which have serrated circular protrusions, the diameter of the serrated circular protrusions on the first portion (4, Fig.2) is larger than those on the second portion (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pin of Ferdinand, such that it has serrated protrusions of different diameters such as taught by Gamp, in order to securely fasten the pins to the main panels.
6. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of GB 2463449 A (GB ‘449).
With respect to claim 4, Ferdinand doesn’t show a third fastening mechanism. GB ‘449 shows a third fastening mechanism (1, 2, FIg.1) for attachment of at least one first supporting panel (FIg.5) to the main panels (Fig.5, not numbered), whereby the third fastening mechanism includes at least one first attachment member (2, FIg.1, Fig.5) attached to at least one of the main panels, and a tongue profile (1, Fig.1) extended from the at least one first supporting panel (Fig.5), the first attachment member (2) includes a groove profile (10, 20, Fig.1) that is complementary to the tongue profile (1) so that the tongue profile can engage with and being inserted into the complementary groove profile (Fig.9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a third fastening mechanism to the assembly of Ferdinand for attaching a supporting panel (e.g. a divider) to one of the main panels, such as taught by GB ‘449, in order to provide quick release and engage mechanism to attach panels together while preventing damage to the main panels of the drawer, provide reinforcement at the attachment point, and provide a releasable and repositionable groove attachment member in order to put the attachment member at a desired location on the main panels.
With respect to claim 5, the combination (GB ‘449) teaches wherein the groove profile (10, 20, Fig.1) includes a closed end (Fig.1, FIg.5, Fig.9) for preventing the first supporting panel from overextending while the tongue profile (1) is sliding within the groove profile (FIg.9).
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 5,682,936 (Higdon).
With respect to claim 6, Ferdinand doesn’t show at least one of the main panels is a foldable panel. Higdon shows one of the main panels (43, FIg.4A) is a foldable panel, whereby the foldable panel comprises a pair of board bodies (46, 47, Fig.4A) hinged by a flexible strip (44, Fig.3), allowing the board bodies to flap between a folded configuration and an expanded configuration (Fig.4A, Fig.4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make one of the main panels of Ferdinand, foldable, such as taught by Higdon, in order to easily store the panel when not needed and easily move between assembled and disassembled position.
8. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 2,801,895 (Gass).
With respect to claim 7, Ferdinand doesn’t show a stopper member. Gass shows wherein the second fastening mechanism further comprises a stopper member (28, FIg.1) for preventing panels (14, 15) with the projecting tongue profiles (see figure 2, Fig.3) from overextending while sliding within the groove channels (22, 24, Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a stopper member to the second fastening mechanism of Ferdinand, such as taught by Gass, in order to prevent the panels with the tongue profiles from sliding out and disengaging from the adjacent panel.
With respect to claim 8, the combination (Gass) shows wherein the stopper member (28, Fig.1) is rotatably hinged on one of the main panels (14) and is rotatable to a lock configuration where the stopper member blocks a sliding pathway of the main panel (15, Col.2 lines 19-26).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) in further in view of US Patent 6,474,901 B1 (Thurston).
With respect to claim 9, Ferdinand doesn’t show a fourth fastening mechanism. Thurston shows a fourth fastening mechanism for attachment of at least one second supporting panel (10, Fig.4) to the main panels (44, 46, Fig.4), whereby the fourth fastening mechanism includes at least one second attachment member (16, Fig.4) attached to at least one of the main panels (44), and a recess (68, Fig.4) at one of the main panels (44, Fig.4), wherein the second attachment member (16) is configured to support a first portion of the second supporting panel (10) and to have a pin attachment (24, Fig.4) to a second portion (12, Fig.4) of the second supporting panel (10, Fig.4), and wherein the recess (68, Fig.4) is configured to receive the first portion of the second supporting panel (10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fourth fastening mechanism to attach a second supporting panel to the main panels, such as taught by Thurston, in order to releasably and securely fasten adjacent panels to each other and prevent unwanted movement and furthermore to provide dovetail connection with panels with different thickness.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,466,675 (Ferdinand) alone.
With respect to claim 10, Ferdinand doesn’t explicitly disclose the furniture assembly is configured in a Louis Philippe style. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the furniture assembly in a Louis Philippe style, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/design of a component. A change in shape/design is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 HIWOT E TEFERA whose telephone number is (571)270-3320. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6PM.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 5712703742. 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.
/HIWOT E TEFERA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3637