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 and Amendments
The amendments, filed December 17, 2025, have been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 14-16 have been amended. Claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
The amendments to the claims have over come the previous objection to the claims and rendered the previous rejection to claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) moot.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-11 that the previously cited prior art of Thompson (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0227985) and Wilson (U.S. Publication No. 2,970,025) do not sufficiently disclose, teach, or suggest the newly amended subject matter of the end section of the engaging members each engaging an upper side of an internal edge profile of the internal sides of the first and second furniture parts of claims 1, 5, 14, 15, and 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thompson discloses the end section 93 and 95 of the engaging members 94 each engage an upper side of an internal edge profile of the internal sides of the first and second furniture parts 38 and 45 (Figures 4A-C). In particular, horizontal portion 95 engages with the upper side of the first and second furniture parts 38 and 45. While Wilson does not disclose the end sections 22a and 22b engaging an upper side of the furniture parts, the horizontal portion of the bracket of Wilson lays flush with the surface of the grooves 24a and 24b while the edges 22a and 22b are pressed into the groove (Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28). The surface of the grooves 24a and 24b which abut the upper part 22 of Wilson is analogous to the upper side of the first and second furniture parts of Thompson, as this is where the upper part of Thompson clamps the furniture corner from above. As such, the combination of Thompson in view of Wilson discloses the claimed subject matter of the amendments.
Applicant additionally argues, on pages 11-12 of Applicant’s remarks, that the previous cited prior art does not sufficiently disclose, teach, or suggest the newly amended subject matter of claims 3 and 17. However, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been entered with Hayn (Patent Publication No. DE 10116857 C1) being cited for teaching the downwardly extending rim, as discussed in further detail below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0227985) in view of Wilson (U.S. Publication No. 2,970,025).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a corner bracket 30 for connecting a leg 86 with a first furniture part 38, and a second furniture part 46 of a piece of furniture 10, said corner bracket 30 comprising an upper part 82 and a lower part 84, wherein the upper part 82 comprises: a first side portion and a second side portion (each side portion defined by the left and right halves of the upper part 82, Figure 4B) each having an integrally formed engaging member 94 with an end section 93 and 95 configured to engage an internal side of the first furniture part 38 or the second furniture part 46 (Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0040-0043), respectively; and a securing member 88 configured to receive a fastening member 106 of the leg 86 (Figure 4B and paragraph 0040); wherein the lower part 84 comprises: a through opening 102 configured to be aligned with the securing member 88 and to receive the fastening member 106 of the leg 86 (Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0042), and wherein in use the end section 93 and 95 of the engaging members 94 each engage an upper side of an internal edge profile of the internal sides of the first and second furniture parts 38 and 45 (Figures 4A-C).
Thompson does not disclose wherein in use the end section of each engaging member extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts.
Wilson teaches wherein, in use, the end section of each engaging member 22a and 22b extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts 23as and 23b (Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Thompson with Wilson (both being directed to a corner connector for furniture assemblies) such that the end section of each engaging member extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the downwardly extending end sections of Wilson help to prevent movement of the leg relative to the frame (Col. 3, lines 17-38).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the engaging members 94 are substantially L-shaped (see Thompson, paragraph 0040, Figure 4A), extending vertically and horizontally from an upper surface 90 of the upper part 82 of the corner bracket 30 (Figure 4A), and wherein the end section 22a and 22b is extending at least to some extent vertically downwards from the horizontal section 22 (see Wilson, Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28) of the L-shape 94 (see Thompson, Figure 4B).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the internal edge profile (defined by the vertical wall of Thompson which abuts vertical portion 93 of the corner bracket, see Thompson, Figure 4B) is arranged along an internal bottom edge of the first and second furniture parts 36 and 48 (where the bottom edge of Thompson is defined by the edge of the furniture parts which abut the planar base 98 of the lower part 84, Figures 4B-C).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the end section of the engaging member 22a and 22b forms a toothed end configured to engage the the upper side of the internal edge profile (see Wilson, Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28, where edges 22a and 22b may be serrated and see Thompson, Figures 4A-C where the engaging members 93 and 95 engage the upper side of the furniture parts 38 and 46).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the toothed end (defined by the serrated edges of end sections 22a and 22b, see Wilson Figures 1, 2, and 7) is arranged on a tilted end of a horizontally extending portion of the engaging member 22 (see Wilson, Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28, where edges 22a and 22b may be serrated).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the toothed end 22a and 22b is angled towards an upper surface of the upper part 22 (see Wilson, Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28, where edges 22a and 22b may be serrated and angled downward from the surface of 22 which abuts the internal edge of the furniture parts 2 and 3, and see Thompson, where the surface of which abuts the internal edge of the furniture parts comprises surfaces 93 and 95 of the engaging parts 94).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the fastening member 106 is a threaded screw (see Thompson, Figure 4A and paragraph 0042)) and the securing member 88 is a threaded bore configured to be engaged with the fastening member 106 to secure the upper part 82 and the lower part 84 together (see Thompson, Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the piece of furniture 10 is a bedframe or a sofa frame (see Thompson, Figure 1 and paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson discloses a bedframe 10, comprising. a corner bracket 30 for connecting a leg 86 with a first furniture part 38, and a second furniture part 46 of the bedframe 10, said corner bracket 30 comprising an upper part 82 and a lower part 84, wherein the upper part 82 comprises: a first side portion and a second side portion (see annotated Figure 4B) each having an integrally formed engaging member 94 with an end section 93 and 95 configured to engage an internal side of the first furniture part 38 or the second furniture part 46 (Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0040-0043), and a securing member 88 configured to receive a fastening member 106 of the leg 86 (Figure 4B and paragraph 0040); wherein the lower part 84 comprises: a through opening 102 configured to be aligned with the securing member 88 and to receive the fastening member 106 of the leg 86 (Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0042); and wherein in use the end section 93 and 95 of the engaging members 94 each engage an upper side of an internal edge profile of the internal sides of the first and second furniture parts 38 and 45 (Figures 4A-C).
Thompson does not disclose wherein in use the end section of each engaging member extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts.
Wilson teaches wherein, in use, the end section of each engaging member 22a and 22b extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts 23as and 23b (Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Thompson with Wilson (both being directed to a corner connector for furniture assemblies) such that the end section of each engaging member extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the downwardly extending end sections of Wilson help to prevent movement of the leg relative to the frame (Col. 3, lines 17-38).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses a method for connecting a leg 86 with a first furniture part 38, and a second furniture part 46 of a piece of furniture 10, using a corner bracket 30 according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, above), said method comprising: contacting an end section of an integrally formed engaging member 94 provided on a first side portion (each of the first and second side portions defined by the left and right halves of the upper part 82, Figure 4B)), of an upper part of the corner bracket 30 with an upper side of an internal edge profile of an internal side of the first furniture part 38 and contacting an end section of an integrally formed engaging member 94 provided on a second side portion of an upper part of the corner bracket 30 with an upper side of an internal edge profile of an internal side of the second furniture part 46; and aligning a lower part 84 of the corner bracket 30 with the upper part 82 such that a through opening 102 in the lower part 84 is aligned with a securing member 88 of the upper part 82; and inserting a fastening member 106 of the leg 86 through the through opening 102 and into the securing member 88 and engaging the fastening member 106 with the securing member 88 (Figures 4A-C and paragraph 0042).
Thompson does not disclose each engaging member 94 extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts.
Wilson teaches each engaging member 22a and 22b extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts 23as and 23b (Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Thompson with Wilson (both being directed to a corner connector for furniture assemblies) such that the end section of each engaging member extends at least to some extent downwards towards the respective internal side of the first and second furniture parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the downwardly extending end sections of Wilson help to prevent movement of the leg relative to the frame (Col. 3, lines 17-38).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 15. Thompson, as modified, further discloses engaging a toothed end section 22a and 22b forming a tilted end of an horizontally extending portion 22 of the engaging member with the upper side of the internal edge profile 24a and 24b of the internal side (see Wilson, Figures 1, 2, and 7 and Col. 4, lines 3-28, where edges 22a and 22b may be serrated and angled downward from the surface of 22 which abuts the internal edge of the furniture parts 2 and 3, and see Thompson, where the surface of which abuts the internal edge of the furniture parts comprises surfaces 93 and 95 of the engaging parts 94).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Wilson and further in view of Hayn (Patent Publication No. DE 10116857 C1).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, does not disclose wherein the upper part further includes a rim that extends along an outer side of the upper surface that is provided without any engaging members, and wherein the rim extends downwards towards the lower part.
Hayn teaches wherein the upper part 2 further includes a rim (defined by the downward bent chamfer discussed in paragraph 0016) that extends along an outer side of the upper surface that is provided without any engaging members, and wherein the rim extends downwards towards the lower part 3 (Figure 1 and paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Thompson, as modified, (directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with Hayn (directed to a corner bracket for a furniture) such that the upper part further includes a rim provided without any engaging members extending downwards towards the lower part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rim of Hayn increases the stiffness of the upper part (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 14. Thompson, as modified, does not disclose wherein the upper part further includes a rim that extends along an outer side of the upper surface that is provided without any engaging members, and wherein the rim extends downwards towards the lower part.
Hayn teaches wherein the upper part 2 further includes a rim (defined by the downward bent chamfer discussed in paragraph 0016) that extends along an outer side of the upper surface that is provided without any engaging members, and wherein the rim extends downwards towards the lower part 3 (Figure 1 and paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Thompson, as modified, (directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with Hayn (directed to a corner bracket for a furniture) such that the upper part further includes a rim provided without any engaging members extending downwards towards the lower part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rim of Hayn increases the stiffness of the upper part (paragraph 0016).
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Wilson and further in view of Giver (Patent Publication No. WO 2020/071982 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the lower part 84 further comprises a first side portion and a second side portion (defined by left and right halves of the lower part 84, see Thompson Figure 4B).
Thompson, as modified, does not disclose each comprising at least one protrusion configured to be mated with a corresponding aperture (16, 26) arranged in the first and second furniture parts
Giver teaches wherein the lower part 10b further comprises a first side portion and a second side portion (defined by left and right halves of the lower part 10b, Figure 2A) each comprising at least one protrusion 14b configured to be mated with a corresponding aperture 30 arranged in the first and second furniture parts 1 and 2 (Figure 2A and Page 8, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Thompson, as modified, (directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with Giver (also directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) such that the side portions each comprise at least one protrusion configured to be mated with a corresponding aperture in the first and second furniture parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the protrusions of Giver ensure the corner bracket is properly aligned with respect to the bed frame (Figure 2A and Page 8, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 9. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein said at least one protrusion 14b extends vertically from an upper surface of the lower part 10b and the corresponding aperture 30 extends into a bottom surface of the first and/or second furniture parts 1 and 2 respectively (see Giver, Figure 2A and Page 8, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thompson, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the corner bracket is made of a metal.
Giver teaches wherein the corner bracket 30 is made of a metal (Page 7, paragraph 3, “the interlocking means 10a, 10b may be made of or comprise a metal material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Thompson, as modified, (directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with Giver (also directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) such that the corner bracket is made of a metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a simple substitution of one element (the material of the corner bracket of Thompson) for another (the metal of the corner bracket of Giver) that would not provide unexpected results as the corner brackets of Giver and Thompson are provided for the identical purpose of connecting two parts of a furniture frame together (see Giver, Figures 2A-C). In this regard, MPEP 2143(B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) are relevant.
Regarding claim 17, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 15. Thompson, as modified, does not disclose wherein the step of inserting and engaging the fastening means member further comprises mating at least one protrusion arranged on the lower part with at least one corresponding aperture extending into a bottom surface of the first or second furniture part, respectively.
Giver teaches mating at least one protrusion 14b arranged on the lower part 10b with at least one corresponding aperture 30 extending into a bottom surface of the first or second furniture part 1 and 2, respectively (Figure 2A and Page 8, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Thompson, as modified, (directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with Giver (also directed to a corner bracket for a bed frame) with the method step of mating at least one protrusion arranged on the lower part with at least one corresponding aperture in a bottom surface of the furniture parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the protrusions of Giver ensure the corner bracket is properly aligned with respect to the bed frame (Figure 2A and Page 8, paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 18, and 20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 20, Thompson, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 14, and 15. Thompson, as modified, further discloses wherein the upper part 82 comprises a cavity 92 disposed along each of the first side portion and the second side portion (see Thompson, Figure 4A); and the lower part 84 further includes a first side portion and a second side portion (each side portion defined by the left and right halves of the lower part 84, Figure 4B), the first side portion and the second side portion of the lower part 84 each including a vertically extending projection 99, each vertically extending projection 99 configured to fit within a corresponding one of each cavity 92 of the upper part 82 (see Thompson, Figures 4A-C).
However, none of the prior art, either alone or in combination disclose, teach, or suggest each cavity is arranged in a bottom surface of the upper part at the engagement member of the first side portion and the second side portion. In Thompson, the cavities 92 are positioned away from the engagement members so the orthogonal projections 99 of the lower part can be inserted through the cavities 92 to align the lower and upper parts together (paragraph 0041). The engagement member 93 and 95 of Thompson are provided to contact an inner and upper side surface such that when the upper part, lower part, leg, and pin are fully assembled (as shown in Figure 4C) the engagement member and walls of the lower member clamp around the first and second furniture part. Providing the cavity 92 at the engagement member would frustrate this ability to tightly clamp the furniture parts. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the prior art of record such that a reasonable rejection of claims 8, 18, and 20 may be reasonably maintained.
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 ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679