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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 13, 17-18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 19-23 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Unfortunately, antecedent issues and typographical errors are present as a result of amending the claims as is explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection in view of co-pending application no. 18/747,751 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 under Milberg have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “upwardly projecting structure of the leg configured to engage any portion of the adjacent seat section (e.g., a peripheral opening) or to restrict lateral displacement independent of fasteners) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please remove the 2nd instance of the word “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least two modules" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner will construe the limitation to read, “at least two support modules”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Milberg et al. (US Patent No. 11464339).
Regarding claim 1, Milberg teaches a modular seating assembly comprising: at least two support modules (Figures 15-16, support modules comprising the combination of legs and flange plates 1500 and 1600), each of the support modules comprising a leg portion (elements 1600) having an upper surface (Figures 15 and 16) and a flange extending upwardly from the upper surface of the leg portion (flange plates 1500 and 1400 extend upwardly and outwardly from upper surface of leg portion 1600); and at least one seat module (Figures 15 and 16, elements 1120a-c) comprising a seating portion and outer walls at least partially delimiting peripheral openings (as depicted in Figures 15 and 16); wherein, when in an assembled configuration, a given one of the at least two support modules is configured to support an adjacent one of the at least one seat module (Figures 15 and 16, corner support modules support arm rest module and an adjacent seat module), wherein the upper surface of the given one of the at least two support modules abuts a portion of the adjacent one of the at least one seat module (Figures 15 and 16, corner support modules support arm rest module and an adjacent seat module, and abuts the bottom portion of the adjacent seat module), and the flange of the given one of the at least two modules engages with a corresponding one of the peripheral openings in the adjacent one of the at least one seat module (as depicted in Figures 15 and 16); and wherein, when in an assembled configuration, the at least two support modules flank the at least one seat module (Figures 15 and 16, corner support modules flank front and rear of seat modules).
Regarding claim 11, Milberg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the peripheral openings are sized and shaped to receive a corresponding flange via an interference fit (Figures 15 and 16 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 12, Milberg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the modular seating assembly is configured for outdoor use (the seating assembly in 15 and 16 may be considered so configurable).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milberg et al. (US Patent No. 11464339) in view of Kuhl et al (US 20200268160 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Milberg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein one of: the at least two modules are a first end module and a second end module (elements 1112 and 1116); the at least one seat module is at least two seat modules (Figures 15 and 16, elements 1120a-c), and the at least two support modules are the first end module (element 1112), the second end module (element 1116), and at least one leg module (element 1600); and the at least two seat modules are two or more seat modules (Figures 15 and 16) and the at least two support modules are the first end module, the second end module, and at least two leg modules (as depicted in Figures 15 and 16). Milberg fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of modules further comprises at least one corner seat module. However, use of corner seat modules configured to couple to a plurality of seat modules on either side is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 23A-C of Kuhl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a modular corner seat, into Milberg’s modular furniture system, in order to provide additional comfort and seating.
Regarding claim 3, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the at least one leg module includes opposing flanges extending upwardly from the upper surface on opposite sides of the leg portion (Figure 16).
Regarding claim 4, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 3, wherein the opposing flanges comprise a pair of the opposing flanges, and wherein a first flange in the pair of the opposing flanges is offset or staggered from a second flange in the pair of the opposing flanges (as depicted in Figure 16).
Regarding claim 6, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the at least one leg module is configured to at least partially support two adjacent seat modules (Figures 16-17 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein at least one of the first end module and the second end module further comprises one of: an arm rest portion extending upwardly from the upper surface of the leg portion on an opposing side from the flange (Figures 15 and 16); and a protrusion extending upwardly from the upper surface of the leg portion on the opposing side from the flange (Figures 15 and 16, rear portion of armrest protrudes further than the rest of the module).
Regarding claim 14, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 2, but fails to specifically teach wherein the corner seat module is configured to couple on a first side thereof to a respective first one of the two or more seat modules and on a front side thereof to a respective second one of the two or more seat modules. However, use of corner seat modules configured to couple to a plurality of seat modules on either side is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 23A-C of Kuhl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a modular corner seat, into Milberg’s modular furniture system, in order to provide additional comfort and seating.
Regarding claim 15, Milberg in view of Kuhl teaches the invention in claim 14, further comprising a corner leg module configured to engage the front side of the corner seat module (Figures 23A-C of Kuhl).
Claim(s) 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milberg et al. (US Patent No. 11464339).
Regarding claim 9, Milberg teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising at least one backrest module comprising a backrest portion (elements 1120a-c) but fails to specifically teach at least one bracket extending outwardly and downwardly from the backrest portion, wherein the at least one bracket is configured to be received in a respective one of the peripheral openings on the at least one seat module. However, Milberg teaches a bracket extending outwardly and upwardly from the seat module that is configured to be received in a peripheral opening in the backrest module (Figures 16 and 22-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to rearrange the connecting bracket and peripheral opening of Milberg by having the bracket feed downward, in order to provide more structural support for the backrest in the event of a user leaning against the back rest portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 16, Milberg teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to teach the system further comprising at least one cushion configured to at least partially cover a seating surface of the at least one seat module. However, Examiner took official notice on page 7 of the office action filed 10/21/2025 advising that use of cushions and throw pillows on furniture for decorative and comfort purposes is well known in the art. The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10, and 19-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644