DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 8, line 2: an “and” or the like should be entered before the term “plastic” for the purpose of grammatical comprehension.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-8 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.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the side walls of the cushion” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6. Claim 1, lines 11-12, recites the limitation “the U-shaped plate can be stored between the seat frame and the cushion” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the plate is configured to be stored between the seat frame and the cushion or is merely optionally required to be stored between the seat frame and therefore not positively required by the claimed invention. The term “can be” should be replaced with “configured to” or the like so as to obviate such indefinitess. For examination purposes, the aforementioned term is being interpreted as “configured to”.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2005/0140184 A1), hereinafter “Williams”, in view of Morgan et al. (US 2002/0021034 A1), hereinafter “Morgan”.
9. Regarding Claim 1, Williams disclose a system (para. [0017] and [0022]; tray 26 for resting on a seat cushion 52/61 of end table 34 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 3) comprising
a U-shaped plate (26) placed upside down and clamping a cushion (paras. [0020] and [0022]; cushion 52/61 as seen in FIGS. 2-4 and 6), and the cushion (5261) arranged on a seat frame (para. [0020] and [0022]; tubular frame 59 as seen in FIGS. 1-8),
wherein the U-shaped plate is integrally formed, both ends of the U-shaped plate are bent 90 degrees, corners at both ends of the U-shaped plate are arc-shaped (para. [0027]; tray 26 is bent from sheet metal includes radiused corners at both ends and the tray 26 is bent 90 degrees as seen in FIGS 11 and 13),
the U-shaped plate (26) is placed on the cushion (52/61), and both sides of the U-shaped plate are adjacent to the side walls of the cushion (para. [0027]; both flanges 80-81 are clearly adjacent to the side walls of cushion 52/61 as seen in FIGS. 3 and 11), under the action of gravity, the cushion with the U-shaped plate on top is used as a tea table or a coffee table, when the cushion is not needed for use as a tea table or a coffee table (para. [0017] and FIG. 3), the U-shaped plate can be stored between the seat frame and the cushion (para. [0022] and [0027]; tray 26 is configured to be stored within pocket 83 formed in base 60 of table 34 which is by definition between tubular frame 59 and cushion 52/61 as clearly seen in FIG. 3).
Williams is silent regarding fixing belts and hook-and-loop fasteners.
Morgan discloses a cushion (Mogan Abstract and paras. [0043]-[0044]; cushion 10 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 10-11) comprising a plurality of fixing belts are provided on a lower surface of the cushion, hook-and-loop fasteners are provided on both sides of the fixing belt, and two hook-and-loop fasteners are correspondingly attached (paras. [0044] and [0050]-[0051]; straps 24 attached to a bottom of cushion having hook and loop fasteners 23 on both sides of straps 24 as seen in FIGS. 1-2, 5, 8 and 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Williams as taught by Morgan such that a plurality of fixing belts are provided on a lower surface of the cushion, hook-and-loop fasteners are provided on both sides of the fixing belt, and two hook-and-loop fasteners are correspondingly attached in order to facilitate the safe, secure and removable attachment of the cushion to the seat frame as intended by the user.
10. Regarding Claim 2, modified Williams discloses (see Williams) the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein a length of the U-shaped plate is greater than a length of the cushion (length of the tray 26 is clearly greater than a length of the cushion 52/61 as clearly seen in FIG. 2).
11. Regarding Claim 8, modified Williams discloses (see Williams) the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the U-shaped plate is made from a material selected from metal, acrylic, plastic (para. [0027]; tray 26 is bent from sheet metal).
12. Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2005/0140184 A1) and Morgan et al. (US 2002/0021034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spendlove (US 2004/0026972 A1).
13. Regarding Claim 3, modified Williams discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the seat frame comprises seat leg frames (paras. [0020] and [0022]; tubular frame 50 with legs supporting base 51 as seen in FIGS. 3 and 4).
Modified Williams is silent regarding wherein the seat frame comprises seat leg frames symmetrically provided on both sides of a seat plate frame, and an upper surface of the seat plate frame and upper surfaces of the seat leg frames are in a common plane.
Spendlove discloses a seat (Spendlove Abstract and FIGS. 1-2) wherein the seat frame comprises seat leg frames (16) symmetrically provided on both sides of a seat plate frame (12), and an upper surface of the seat plate frame (12) and upper surfaces of the seat leg frames are in a common plane (upper surfaces of seat frame 12 and upper surfaces of leg frame members 16 are in a common plane as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Williams as taught by Spendlove such that the seat frame comprises seat leg frames symmetrically provided on both sides of a seat plate frame, and an upper surface of the seat plate frame and upper surfaces of the seat leg frames are in a common plane in order to strengthen the structural connection between the leg frames and the seat plate frame as well as increasing a surface area that is intended to accommodate the cushion.
14. Regarding Claim 6, modified Williams discloses (see Spendlove) the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the seat leg frame is an n-shaped frame (FIG. 1), and connecting rods are provided horizontally at middle parts of the two seat leg frames (connecting rods between front and aft portions of each leg frame member 16 as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
15. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2005/0140184 A1), Morgan et al. (US 2002/0021034 A1) and Spendlove (US 2004/0026972 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang (US 6209154 B1).
16. Regarding Claim 4, modified Williams discloses the furniture system according to claim 1.
Modified Williams is silent regarding a cross beam is provided within a body of the seat plate frame, and both end surfaces of the cross beam are fixed to two inner side walls of the body of the seat plate frame.
Huang disclose a seat frame (Huang Abstract and col. 3, ll. 24-39; seat frame 12 as seen in FIG. 1) wherein a cross beam is provided within a body of the seat plate frame (cross beam extending along the length of frame 12, within ends 123/124 as seen in FIG. 1), and both end surfaces of the cross beam are fixed to two inner side walls of the body of the seat plate frame (ends of the cross beam fixe to inner side walls of frame 12 as seen in FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Williams as taught by Huang such that a cross beam is provided within a body of the seat plate frame, and both end surfaces of the cross beam are fixed to two inner side walls of the body of the seat plate frame in order to increase the structural load capacity of the seat plate frame.
17. Regarding Claim 5, modified Williams discloses (see Huang) the furniture system according to claim 4, wherein a plurality of vertical plates are installed on an upper surface of the cross beam (traverse cross beams extending along the width frame 12, between ends 123/124 as seen in FIG. 1), and both end surfaces of the vertical plates are fixed on two inner side walls of the body of the seat plate frame (FIG. 1).
18. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2005/0140184 A1), Morgan et al. (US 2002/0021034 A1) and Spendlove (US 2004/0026972 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tristan (US 2020/0093266 A1).
19. Regarding Claim 7, modified Williams discloses the furniture system according to claim 6.
Modified Williams is silent regarding two ends of a crossbar are respectively fixed to middle sections of the two connecting rods.
Tristan discloses a table (Tristan Abstract and para. [0033]; table 1 as seen in FIG. 1) wherein two ends of a crossbar are respectively fixed to middle sections of the two connecting rods (para. [0033]; ends of side stretcher 13 are respectively fixed to middle sections of stretchers 11/15 as seen in FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Williams as taught by Tristan such that two ends of a crossbar are respectively fixed to middle sections of the two connecting rods in order to increase the structural load capacity of the seat frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments pertaining to claim 1, the applicant asserts that Williams et al. ‘184 is silent regarding “the U-shaped plate (1) is placed on the cushion (2), and both sides of the U-shaped plate (1) are adjacent to the side walls of the cushion (2), under the action of gravity, the cushion (2) with the U-shaped plate (1) on top is used as a tea table or a coffee table, when the cushion (2) is not needed for use as a tea table or a coffee table, the U-shaped plate (1) can be stored between the seat frame (3) and the cushion (2)”. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive in light of Williams disclosure regarding coffee end table 34 as discussed above regarding claim 1. The applicant has not provided any remarks pertaining to the storability of the tray 26 between the seat cushion and seat frame of the table 34, which is by definition a seat, as now relied upon in the discussion above, regarding claim 1. Furthermore, as indicated by the rejection under 112(b), the term “can be” is indefinite and does not equate to a positive recitation regarding the capability of the tray 26. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, based on William’s disclosure, that such a tray can be readily positioned beneath a removable cushion, on top of a frame in which support the cushion.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642