DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/579,385 for a PIECE OF FURNITURE COMPRISING A WEIGHTED STRUCTURAL ELEMENT, filed on 1/15/2024. This correspondence is in response to applicant's RCE filed on 1/27/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-35 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-17 and 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 34 recites the limitation "the attachments means" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2, 4-6, 8-17, 19-33 and 35 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claims 1 and 34. As a note, with regard to claim 34, the term “if a form” should be changed to “in a form.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 4 contains the term regarding “a weighted structural element,” however, a weighted structural element is already referenced in claim 1. It is unclear and confusing whether the element of claims 1 and 4 are intended to constitute the same members or different members. Clarification of the antecedent basis for the member in claim 4 is necessary. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 23 contains the limitation regarding “wherein the weighted structural element is provided with one or more connecting means for connecting the weighted structural element to one or more other structural elements by the connecting means, or the weighted structural element comprises at least two connecting means, being arranged in two separate ends of the weighted structural element,” however, claim 1 claims “one or more structural elements connected by attachment means to form the piece of furniture… the weighted structural element attached by the attachment means to the two others of the structural elements.” The limitation of claim 23 is therefore confusing because it appears that the connecting means of claim 23 may be the same member as the attachment means of claim 1. If not, clarification regarding the relationship between the connecting means and the attachment means is necessary. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 24 contains the term regarding “an outer housing,” however, it appears that the beam, bar or stretcher referenced in claim 1 would function as the outer housing. Therefore, it is unclear and confusing whether the beam, bar or stretcher of claim 1 and the outer housing of claim 24 are intended to constitute the same members or different members. If different members, clarification regarding the relationship between the beam, bar or stretcher of claim 1 and the outer housing of claim 4 is necessary. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 26 contains the limitation regarding “one or more connecting means,” however, claim 1 claims “one or more structural elements.” The limitations of claims are therefore confusing because it appears that the connecting means may be the same member as the attachment means. If not, clarification regarding the relationship between the connecting means and the attachment means is necessary. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 32 and 33 contain the term “ceramic nature,” however it is unclear what is meant by the term “nature.” The Examiner interprets the claim to be components that make up a ceramic material, such as sand and other members known to constitute a ceramic material, Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-16, 19-27 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsini (U.S. Pat. 11,178,968) in view of Detterbeck (U.S. Pat. 3,713,719).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, as best understood, Orsini teaches a piece of furniture (100), comprising a ballast device (160) utilized to provide stabilization to the piece of furniture, but does not teach that the ballast device comprises one or more structural elements connected by attachment means to form the piece of furniture, wherein at least one of the structural elements is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material, said at least one weighted structural element is arranged to form a structural part of the piece of furniture and to add weight to the piece of furniture to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is a load bearing structural element of the piece of furniture in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others of the structural elements of the piece of furniture with two opposing ends of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends of, the weighted structural element. Detterbeck teaches a household appliance having one or more structural elements (17, Fig. 4) connected by attachment means (18) to form the appliance, at least one of the structural elements is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material (14), said at least one weighted structural element is arranged to form a structural part of the appliance and to add weight to the appliance to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the appliance, wherein the weighted structural element is a load bearing structural element of the appliance in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others (9) of the structural elements of the appliance with two opposing ends (19) of the weighted structural element attached by the attachment means (18) to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends (19) of, the weighted structural element in order to counter the largest possible lever arm to absorb a tilting or tipping force acting upon the appliance to prevent the appliance from tilting or tipping forward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to substitute the ballast device of Orsini for a ballast device comprising one or more structural elements connected by attachment means to form the piece of furniture, wherein at least one of the structural elements of the piece of furniture as a weighted structural element comprising a weight material, said at least one weighted structural element is arranged to form a structural part of the piece of furniture and to add weight to the piece of furniture to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is a load bearing structural element of the piece of furniture in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others of the structural elements of the piece of furniture with two opposing ends of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends of, the weighted structural element in order to improve the stability of the furniture with a relatively small ballast weight that will not occupy an otherwise useful area of the furniture, in view of Detterbeck.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, but do not specifically teach that the weighted structural element has a density and/or a weight that is higher than a density and/or a weight of other structural elements of the piece of furniture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the weighted structural element having a density and/or a weight that is higher than a density and/or a weight of other structural elements of the piece of furniture in order to provide a weight heavier than the structural elements in order to stabilize the furniture in place, and further, because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein Detterbeck teaches that a frame (rear frame) is formed by one or more structural elements, wherein at least one of said structural elements of the frame is the weighted structural element.
Regarding claims 10-16 and 21, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, but do not teach that the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a vertical center of mass of the weighted structural element is arranged below the vertical center of mass of the piece of furniture, the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a horizontal center of mass of the weighted structural element is arranged rearward of a horizontal center of mass of the piece of furniture, the piece of furniture is a storage furniture and the weighted structural element is arranged such that a center of mass of the weighted structural element is located at a main preferred region, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a first preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the first preferred region is located behind a middle between a geometrical transverse center and a back of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a second preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the second preferred region is located below a middle between the geometrical vertical center and a lower end of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a most preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the most preferred region is located below the middle between the geometrical vertical center and the lower end of the piece of furniture and behind the middle between a geometrical transverse center and a back of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged such that a center of mass of the piece of furniture will not cross a pivot point vertical axis intersecting a pivot point of the piece of furniture when the piece of furniture is rotated forward less than a pivot angle about the pivot point, wherein the pivot angle is at least 30° located below a geometrical vertical center of the piece of furniture and, as viewed from a front of the piece of furniture, behind a geometrical transverse center of the piece of furniture, and wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a horizontal center of mass of the weighted structural element substantially coincide with a horizontal center of mass of the piece of furniture. Orisini, however, teaches that the furniture can be constructed in various configurations (col. 2, lines 1-4) in order to accommodate different environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Orisini and Detterbeck where the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a vertical center of mass of the weighted structural element is arranged below the vertical center of mass of the piece of furniture, the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a horizontal center of mass of the weighted structural element is arranged rearward of a horizontal center of mass of the piece of furniture, the piece of furniture is a storage furniture and the weighted structural element is arranged such that a center of mass of the weighted structural element is located at a main preferred region, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a first preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the first preferred region is located behind a middle between a geometrical transverse center and a back of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a second preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the second preferred region is located below a middle between the geometrical vertical center and a lower end of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a most preferred region of the main preferred region, wherein the most preferred region is located below the middle between the geometrical vertical center and the lower end of the piece of furniture and behind the middle between a geometrical transverse center and a back of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is arranged such that a center of mass of the piece of furniture will not cross a pivot point vertical axis intersecting a pivot point of the piece of furniture when the piece of furniture is rotated forward less than a pivot angle about the pivot point, wherein the pivot angle is at least 30° located below a geometrical vertical center of the piece of furniture and, as viewed from a front of the piece of furniture, behind a geometrical transverse center of the piece of furniture, and wherein the weighted structural element is arranged at a position at which a horizontal center of mass of the weighted structural element substantially coincide with a horizontal center of mass of the piece of furniture in order to prevent the piece of furniture from tipping over and to prevent undesired movement and a possible hazard, and further, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein Orsini teaches one or more drawers and/or one or more doors or wherein the piece of furniture is a chest of drawers.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein Orisini teaches that the piece of furniture can comprise other types of furniture assemblies (col. 2, lines 1-4) but do not teach that the piece of furniture is a table or a chair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Orisini and Detterbeck where the piece of furniture is a table or a chair in order to stabilize various common types of household items that are prone to becoming destabilized and commonly tipped over causing harm or injury to minors.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein Detterbeck teaches that the weighted structural element is provided with one or more connecting means for connecting the weighted structural element to one or more other structural elements by the connecting means or the weighted structural element comprises at least two connecting means (18, attachment means) being arranged in two separate ends (19) of the weighted structural element.
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein the weighted structural element comprises an outer housing (17) formed from a material (not disclosed, but the housing/container must be different form the weight material in order to it to hold or support the material therein) that is different from the weight material (water, sand).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 24, but do not teach that the outer housing is formed from at least one of a metal material, a plastic material, and/or a paper material, the housing having a wall thickness of 0.1-5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the outer housing formed from at least one of a metal material, a plastic material, and/or a paper material, the housing having a wall thickness of 0.1-5 mm in order to sufficiently contain the weighted material, and further, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 24, wherein the weighted structural element is provided with one or more connecting means (18, attachment means) for connecting the weighted structural element to one or more other structural elements by the connecting means or the weighted structural element comprises at least two connecting means being arranged in two separate ends (19) of the weighted structural element.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein the weighted structural element comprises one or more weight bricks (member 14 forms a brick) formed from the weighted material.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, wherein the weight material comprises one or more materials with a ceramic nature (sand) or wherein the weight material comprises a binder, or the weighted material comprises a mixture of a binder and an ore and/or a material of a ceramic nature (sand).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, as best understood, Orsini teaches a piece of furniture (100), comprising a ballast device (160) utilized to provide stabilization to the piece of furniture, but does not teach that the ballast device comprises a structural element that is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material, the weighted structural element having a density that is higher than 1 g/cm³, or wherein the weight material has a density being higher than 3 g/cm³, for adding weight to the piece of furniture to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is load bearing structural element of the piece of furniture in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others of the structural elements of piece of the furniture with two opposing ends of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends of, the weighted structural element. Detterbeck teaches a household appliance having one or more structural elements (17, Fig. 4) connected by attachment means (18) to form the appliance, wherein the structural element is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material (14) for adding weight to the appliance to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the appliance, wherein the weighted structural element is load bearing structural element of the appliance in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others (9) of the structural elements of the appkiance with two opposing ends (19) of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means (18) to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends of, the weighted structural element in order to counter the largest possible lever arm to absorb a tilting or tipping force acting upon the appliance to prevent the appliance from tilting or tipping forward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to substitute the ballast device of Orsini for a ballast device comprising a structural element that is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material, the weighted structural element having a density that is higher than 1 g/cm³, or wherein the weight material has a density being higher than 3 g/cm³, for adding weight to the piece of furniture to reduce a risk of unwanted movement of the piece of furniture, wherein the weighted structural element is load bearing structural element of the piece of furniture in a form of a beam, a bar, or a stretcher that connects to and extends horizontally between two others of the structural elements of piece of the furniture with two opposing ends of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means to the two others of the structural elements, and wherein the weight material is positioned within, and horizontally between the two opposing ends of, the weighted structural element in order to improve the stability of the furniture with a relatively small ballast weight that will not occupy an otherwise useful area of the furniture, and further, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, in view of Detterbeck.
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsini (U.S. Pat. 11,178,968) in view of Detterbeck (U.S. Pat. 3,713,719) in further view of Merkt (DE 19905894).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, as best understood, Orsini and Detterbeck teach the furniture of claim 1, but do not teach that the weight material comprises an iron ore or metal particles in the form of metal chips, metal powder and/or metal granules. Merkt, however, teaches a weight material (6) that comprises an iron ore (“Eisen”) or a weight material that comprises metal particles in the form of metal chips, metal powder and/or metal granules in order to provide mass to an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the weight material comprising an iron ore or metal particles in the form of metal chips, metal powder and/or metal granules in order to provide heaviness to the weighted object to prevent movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-16, 19-27 and 30-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 28 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 21, 2026