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 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 reply filed on 5/26/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-35 are pending.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 111 134 474).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a piece of furniture, comprising 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 (19, 26-28), 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 (33) with two opposing ends of the weighted structural element attached by the attachments means (17, 23) 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.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
342
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Weighted structural element)]
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, wherein a frame (bottom 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 19 and 20, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, wherein one or more drawers and/or one or more doors or wherein the piece of furniture is a chest of drawers (Fig. 1).
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.
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) 2, 10-16, 21-23, 27 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111 134 474).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, but does 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 claims 10-16 and 21, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, but does 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. However, 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 Wang 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 claim 22, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, but does 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 Wang 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, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, wherein the attachment means include one or more connecting means provided on the weighted structural element for connecting the weighted structural element to one or more other structural elements by the connecting means or at least two connecting means provided on the weighted structural element (28) being arranged in two separate ends of the weighted structural element (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, wherein the weighted structural element comprises one or more weight bricks (cast iron or cement) formed from the weighted material.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Wang teaches the furniture of claim 1, wherein the weight material comprises one or more ceramic materials (cement) or wherein the weight material comprises a binder, or the weighted material comprises a mixture of a binder and an ore and/or a ceramic material (cement.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Wang teaches a piece of furniture (Fig. 1), comprising a ballast device utilized to provide stabilization to the piece of furniture, the ballast device comprises a structural element that is a weighted structural element comprising a weight material, 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 attachment 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, but does not teach that 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. 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 he 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, 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.
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111 134 474) in further view of Merkt (DE 19905894).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Wang teaches 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, 10-16, 19-23, 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
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 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 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights