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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Shimosawa, applicant argues that Shimosawa teaches away from a multi module sofa unit. Applicant argues that Shimosawa is directed to seating large number of people such as in a restaurant.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Few of the objectives of Shimosawa’s invention is to provide seating for restaurant that can seat large number of people. However, Shimosawa clearly discloses other objectives will become apparent and has no limitations that prevent from using the invention as a single seat or a multi-unit arrangement.
Applicant also argues that Shimosawa invention is a curved invention and cannot be used a rectangular sofa.
However, applicant’s invention requires a curved sofa in addition to rectangular sofa to create a multi-unit sofa arrangement. Shimosawa has no limitations that prevents from combining the curved sofa with another rectangular sofa to create a multi-unit setting. Shimosawa clearly discloses the invention can be used in restaurant. It is well known that restaurant can have different shapes of sofas to accommodate different areas of the restaurant.
Applicant also argues that Shimosawa teaches away from armrest. However, Shimosawa has no limitations that prevents from using an armrest.
Claims 1-3, 7-10 stand rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosawa in view of Milberg et al. (11,464,339).
Regarding claim 1, Shimosawa discloses a multifunctional combined sofa, wherein the combined sofa is formed by any combination of several sofa modules (figures 1-4 shows a fan shape and figure 5 shows a square shape), the sofa modules comprise a fan-shaped seat (figures 1-4), a connecting seat (see figure 5 with a central seat 12’ and left and right seats), and a rectangular stool T (figure 5); and a lower portion of a fan-shaped backrest 26 of the fan-shaped seat 24 is fixed to a rear edge of a fan-shaped base 28, the fan-shaped base is fitted with a fan-shaped cushion (see figure 3 where the cushion can be seen), an outward central angle of a front circular arc edge (see figure 4) to a center of the fan-shaped seat cushion is 45 degrees, a bottom of the fan-shaped backrest and a bottom of the fan-shaped base share a plane, and support legs 30 are disposed at four corners of the plane.
However, Shimosawa fails to disclose the left seat comprises a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plan, wherein the right seat comprises a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of the rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane.
Millberg et al. disclose the left seat comprises a rectangular backrest 1120a/b, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base 1121a/b, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730 (applies to all setups); and an armrest a 1110a/b abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plan, wherein the right seat 1120a/b comprises a rectangular backrest 1121a/b, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of the rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730; and an armrest 1110a/b abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Millberg et al. and include right and left seat in the invention of Shimosawa because it is compact and efficient way to seat additional users.
Furthermore, Shimosawa fails to disclose a rectangular backrest, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion; and an armrest abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, an armrest abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane.
Millberg et al. disclose the single seat comprises a rectangular backrest 726, a lower portion of the rectangular backrest is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base 722, and an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion 730; and an armrest 710a abuts against and is fixed to left side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, an armrest 710b abuts against and is fixed to right side walls of the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the armrest, a bottom of the rectangular backrest, and a bottom of the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs 1600 are disposed at four corners of the plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Millberg et al. include single seat in the invention of Shimosawa because it is compact and efficient way to seat additional users.
Regarding claim 2, Shimosawa discloses in figures 3 and 4 a cross-section of the fan-shaped cushion (figure 3) is fan-shaped, and is formed by encircling of a left side edge, the front circular arc edge, a right side edge, and a rear circular arc edge; and one end of the left side edge and one end of the right side edge are respectively connected to two ends of the circular arc edge, the other end of the left side edge and the other end of the right side edge are respectively connected to two ends of the circular arc edge, and a length of the left side edge is equal to a length of the right side edge (figures 3 and 4 of Shimosawa are identical to figure 1 of the applicant’s invention).
Regarding claim 3, Shimosawa discloses in figure 5 a lower portion of a rectangular backrest of the connecting seat is fixed to a rear edge of a rectangular base, an upper surface of the rectangular base is fitted with a rectangular cushion, the rectangular backrest and the rectangular base share a plane, and support legs are disposed at four corners of the plane (figure 5 discloses a square shape of the figures 1-4 which contains all the elements of the seat back, bottom, base, cushion and casters).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosawa in view of Millberg et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altemimei (11,633,046).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Altemimei discloses the rectangular stool 72 comprises a rectangular cushion 68, the rectangular cushion is fitted with an upper surface of a rectangular base 10, and support legs 20 are disposed at four corners of a lower surface of the rectangular base, wherein a cross-section of the rectangular cushion is rectangular.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Altemimei and use the rectangular stool in the invention of Shimosawa because it is compact and efficient.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosawa in view of Millberg et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotowicz (2,344,093).
Regarding claim 9, Kotowicz discloses the support leg 13 is an oblique quadrangular prism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kotowicz and use prism shaped legs in the invention of Shimosawa because it is simple and cost effective.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosawa in view of Millberg et al. and Kotowicz (2,344,093), as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Miller (US 2010/0026057).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses an anti-skid gasket 160 is mounted at a bottom of the support leg.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Miller and use the anti skid material in the legs of Shimosawa for the purpose of preventing any damages and injuries.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636