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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the drawing objection, the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections, the objections do not appear to be addressed in the Remarks and the claim amendments do not obviate the objections, therefore the claim objections are maintained and/or re-iterated in light of the amended claims.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been found unpersuasive. The rejection is maintained, but modified in light of the limitations added via amendment.
Applicant argues the claim mapping to Walters is “improper” and “does not satisfy the requirements of anticipation”. Walters is not being relied upon to teach the slats/cross-rails of the receiving body (bottom pf page 7 of the arguments), see the 103 Rejections section for details of the present rejection of amended claims 1, 12, and 29.
Likewise, (paragraph 2, page 8) the movement assembly, as presented in the amended claims is disclosed by Walters. Specifically, the office notes the assembly disclosed by Walters comprising rocker members 42 and 43 securely mounted to the receiving body via the sides 45 of the support member of the receiving body configured to move together as a unit. In the final paragraph of claim 8, Applicant argues “the office overlooks the claimed requirement that the receiving body and the movement assembly move together as a unit”. Respectfully, the office did not overlook the limitation as the limitation was added to the claims during the 6/4/2026 amendments and is clearly disclosed by Walters via the floor engaging means. Please see 103 Rejections section for rejection of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
The claims (9 and 29) are objected to for minor informalities.
A limitation of claim 9 reads as a method step instead of a limitation of an apparatus – specifically, the following claim language, as amended 6/4/2026, is objected to: “wherein the receiving body moves in at least one of a linear motion and a non-linear motion”. Correction/clarification is suggested/required, for example “…the receiving body is configured to move…”
Claim 29 attempts to further limit the invention referencing an element that is not required by the claim. An amendment to clearly reflect the intended use of the unrequired element would clarify the claim, for example, as previously suggested in the 2/5/2026 office action: “a frameless furniture support that is configured to accommodate configured to prevent the frameless furniture support in at least one of a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction”.
The office notes the suggested amended claim language did not appear to be used or commented on in the Remarks, therefore the objection is maintained with regard to the positive recitations of a method step, i.e., “support accommodates”, “support prevents decoupling”.
Additionally, the 6/4/2026 amendments to claim 29, contain language which render the claim indefinite. See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section for details.
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.
Claims 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites “A frameless furniture movement assembly for moving a frameless furniture assembly, the frameless furniture movement assembly comprising:
a frameless furniture support that accommodates the frameless furniture assembly and prevents decoupling of the frameless furniture assembly from a receiving body in at least one of a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction, wherein the receiving body comprises a plurality of slats; and
a movement assembly mounted to the receiving body, the movement assembly configured to move the frameless furniture support in the first direction, wherein the receiving body and movement assembly move together as a unit, and wherein the movement assembly comprises at least two rails or runners directly contacting the receiving body”.
The claim language renders the claim indefinite for two reasons.
First, “a receiving body” is not positively claimed, therefore it is indefinite to further limit the invention with “slats on the receiving body”, as the receiving body is not actually required by the claim. Likewise it is indefinite to claim a movement assembly mounted to an item or moving together as a unit with an item that is not required by the claim, i.e., “the receiving body”. The office notes the last line of the claim the “at least two rails or runners” are claimed as “directly contacting an item that is not required by the claim – the receiving body – this is indefinite. Correction/clarification is required, for example “…the frameless furniture movement assembly comprising: a receiving body…”
Second, it is unclear what exactly distinguishes “a frameless furniture support” from “a receiving body”, particularly in the embodiment elected by Applicant 1/16/2026.
For convenience the office notes: Applicant elects Species 1 drawn to the furniture assembly in Figs. 1-25, and Sub-species A, drawn to the movement assembly in Fig. 6.
Applicant discloses non-elected movement assembly 900 in Figs. 28-30 comprising frameless furniture support 954, however this embodiment does not disclose a receiving body, such as 110 in the elected sub-species A, movement assembly 100.
Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is being claimed with the terms “a frameless furniture support” and “a receiving body” in claim 29 Correction/clarification is required. Claims 30 and 32 do not cure the deficiencies. Respectfully, the claims will be examined as though instances of “frameless furniture support” instead read “receiving body” as this appears to best match the elected embodiment. The office notes this is in a sincere effort to avoid examination delays and best expedite prosecution.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11-12, 14, 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters, preciously cited (US 3,999,801); and Chu (US 6,755,467 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Walters discloses a frameless furniture movement assembly for moving a frameless furniture assembly (FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the seating APPARATUS of the present invention and illustrating, in phantom, a body cushion contained therein), the frameless furniture movement assembly comprising:
a receiving body that accommodates the frameless furniture assembly and limits decoupling of the frameless furniture assembly from the receiving body in at least one of a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction (“shell B including pedestal 22 integral therewith”, base 46 and socket posts 48); and
a movement assembly mounted to the receiving body to move the receiving body in the first direction, wherein the receiving body and movement assembly move together as a unit (The office notes the assembly comprising rocker members 42 and 43 securely mounted to the receiving body via the sides 45 of the support member of the receiving body configured to move together as a unit), and
wherein the movement assembly comprises at least two rails or runners directly contacting the receiving body (42 and 43), but Walters does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the receiving body comprises a plurality of slats.
However, Chu teaches a conformable backrest for a chair in the same field of endeavor including a receiving body comprising a plurality of slats (support shell 24, plurality of slats 84; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the frameless furniture movement assembly disclosed by Walters with the plurality of slats on a receiving body as taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the receiving body comprises a plurality of slats. The benefit being the predictable outcome of providing adjustable support to the back of a user in the main sitting area of the assembly.
Regarding claim 9, modified Walters discloses the frameless furniture movement assembly of claim 1, wherein the receiving body moves in at least one of a linear motion and a non-linear motion (Examiner notes “shell B including pedestal 22 integral therewith” is structurally capable of movement in a linear motion and a non-linear motion without modification).
Regarding claim 11, modified Walters discloses the frameless furniture movement assembly of claim 1, wherein the movement assembly comprises at least one bearing surface forming a surface of a member configured to support the receiving body (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Walters discloses a frameless furniture moving system (the system comprising Fig. 1) comprising:
a frameless furniture assembly comprising a cover and an insert disposed within the cover (body cushion C – shown in phantom in Fig. 1; comprising the cushion cover detailed in col. 2, lines 21-24) and
a frameless furniture moving assembly (FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the seating APPARATUS of the present invention and illustrating, in phantom, a body cushion contained therein), comprising:
a receiving body that accommodates the frameless furniture assembly and limits decoupling of the frameless furniture assembly from the receiving body in at least one of a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction (“shell B including pedestal 22 integral therewith”, base 46 and socket posts 48); and
a movement assembly operatively coupled to the receiving body to move the receiving body in the first direction, wherein the receiving body and movement assembly move together as a unit (The office notes the assembly comprising rocker members 42 and 43 securely mounted to the receiving body via the sides 45 of the support member of the receiving body configured to move together as a unit), and wherein the movement assembly comprises at least two rails or runners directly contacting the receiving body (42 and 43), but Walters does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the receiving body comprises a plurality of cross-rails.
However, Chu teaches a conformable backrest for a chair in the same field of endeavor including a receiving body comprising a plurality of cross-rails (support shell 24, plurality of slats 84; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the frameless furniture movement assembly disclosed by Walters with the plurality of cross-rails on a receiving body as taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the receiving body comprises a plurality of cross-rails. The benefit being the predictable outcome of providing adjustable support to the back of a user in the main sitting area of the assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Walters discloses the frameless furniture moving system of claim 12, wherein the receiving body is detachable from the movement assembly (The office notes the receiving body is detachable from the movement assembly).
Regarding claim 29, Walters discloses a frameless furniture movement assembly for moving a frameless furniture assembly (Fig. 1), the frameless furniture movement assembly comprising:
a frameless furniture support/receiving body that accommodates the frameless furniture assembly and prevents decoupling of the frameless furniture assembly from the frameless furniture support/receiving body in at least one of a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction (“shell B including pedestal 22 integral therewith”, base 46 and socket posts 48; the office notes the side portions 14, 14 and front portion 18 are configured to retain body cushion C with in the cavity laterally and longitudinally; see col. 3 line 20 and line 39); and
a movement assembly mounted to the frameless furniture support/receiving body that is configured to move the frameless furniture support in the first direction, wherein the frameless furniture support/receiving body and movement assembly move together as a unit, (The office notes the assembly comprising rocker members 42 and 43 securely mounted to the receiving body via the sides 45 of the support member of the receiving body configured to move together as a unit), and wherein the movement assembly comprises at least two rails or runners directly contacting the receiving body (42 and 43), but Walters does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the receiving body comprises a plurality of slats.
However, Chu teaches a conformable backrest for a chair in the same field of endeavor including a receiving body comprising a plurality of slats (support shell 24, plurality of slats 84; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the frameless furniture movement assembly disclosed by Walters with the plurality of slats on a receiving body as taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the receiving body comprises a plurality of slats. The benefit being the predictable outcome of providing adjustable support to the back of a user in the main sitting area of the assembly.
Regarding claim 30, modified Walters discloses the frameless furniture movement assembly of claim 29, wherein the movement assembly comprises a portion of the frameless furniture support (47).
Regarding claim 32, modified Walters discloses the frameless furniture movement assembly of claim 29, wherein the frameless furniture support/receiving body comprises at least one curved slat member (Chu 84, Fig. 4).
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 SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights