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 .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
The “casegood furniture assembly comprises a second base having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a width (W) of the second base, where (L+2W)/2 is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Figures fail to disclose this spatial relationship as claimed and as described in paragraph 380. It is unclear how this spatial relationship exists as further explained in the 112 rejection below.
The “casegood furniture assembly comprises a second base having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a length (x) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). This relationship is described in paragraph 385, directed toward Fig. 49B, however Fig. 49B shows casegood assembly 10q has a length of y+z. The figure also shows the reference character L is the same length as x, not x+z.
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because several inconsistencies exist between the specification and the reference characters in the drawings. One example includes reference characters 10i and 10j missing from Fig. 49A as described in paragraphs 383-385. Another example includes reference character “10q” used in Fig. 49B while paragraph 385 refers to the casegood assembly of Fig. 49B as “10s”. Further, there is no “10s” found in any of the figures. The drawings should be fully reviewed and revised to align with the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: several inconsistencies exist between the specification and the reference characters in the drawings as explained in the drawing objection above. Further, several informalities exist including in paragraph 385, “(W)” is used to refer to both the width and length of a casegood furniture assembly 10s.
Appropriate correction is required. The specification should be fully reviewed and revised to align with the drawings.
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.
Claims 1-22 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 “a coupler” in line 3, and “a coupler” in line 6 which are presumably different couplers. The coupler of line 3 is interpreted to be coupler 523 which is responsible for coupling upright member 514a to base 512a (shown in Fig. 38B) while the coupler of line 6 is interpreted to be the foot coupler 524 which is responsible for coupling furniture assemblies to other furniture/casegood assemblies. This leads to antecedent issues in claims 12, 16, 21, and 22 which all refer to either “the coupler” or “a coupler”. For example, claim 12 recites “wherein the coupler comprises a first side, a second side, the first aperture being disposed…” although both couplers (523 and 524) appear to have a first and second side as well as at least one aperture. Claim 21 recites two casegood furniture assemblies being “joined together by a coupler” which Fig. 47I shows may be coupler 524b or coupler 623. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-22 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the casegood furniture assembly comprises a second base having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a width (W) of the second base, where (L+2W)/2 is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member.” It is unclear how the length (L) and width (W) can be equal to each other while (L+2W)/2 is also equal to y+z. This relationship is described in Paragraph 380 and Fig. 48B, however it is not clear how this spatial relationship would be possible therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a body member” without defining any relationship between the “body member” and any element recited in claim 1 rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 14-18 are rejected for depending from claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Seitz (U.S. Pub. No. 20020195848).
With respect to claim 1, White discloses a furniture assembly system (Figs. 6B-6J) comprising: a first furniture assembly (Fig. 1, furniture assembly 10) comprising a first base (base 12), a first upright member (transverse member 14), and a coupler (Fig. 5A, coupler 15); an adjacent furniture assembly (Figs. 6E-6G show an “adjacent” right-side furniture assembly 10 coupled to the first/left side furniture assembly 10), the adjacent furniture assembly comprising an upper member (right-side furniture assembly 10 has a upper cushion 18); and a coupler (Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) having a first aperture (aperture 74a) and a second aperture (aperture 74d), wherein the first aperture (74a) is configured to receive a first foot of the first furniture assembly (“Col. 11, lines 36, 37, “Apertures 74a-b are sized and configured to receive a foot of base 12”) and the second aperture (74d) is configured to receive a second foot of the adjacent furniture assembly (Col. 11, lines 62-65, “Foot coupler 34a has four apertures 74a-d, enabling foot coupler 34a to be utilized in connection with coupling a base 12 to multiple transverse members 14 and/or bases 12 to form a furniture assembly as shown in FIGS. 6c-6j”).
White fails to disclose the adjacent furniture assembly is a casegood furniture assembly.
Seitz discloses a casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 2, table unit 12), which is couplable to a first furniture assembly (left chair unit 12) via a foot coupler (Fig. 3A, tool 46), comprising an upper member (horizontal upper panel of table unit 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjacent furniture assembly of White such that it is a table unit, as taught by Seitz, in order for users to have an easily accessible storage space for placing items, such as drink or books, when seated in the chair. It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including tables situated between the seats are known in the art as made evident by US20130255044, US2716775, US7806474, US5630644, and US3093410.
With respect to claim 2, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Seitz) further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (table unit 12) comprises one of a table, a coffee table, a side table, an end table, a cabinet, a game table, a dresser, a chest, a credenza, in-line table, corner table, combinations or modifications thereof (table unit 12).
With respect to claim 3, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses a plurality of first furniture assemblies and a plurality of second furniture assemblies (see modified Fig. 6G below, two left-side first furniture assemblies 10 each having a base 12 and a transverse member 14, as well as two right-side second furniture assemblies each having a base 12 and a transverse member 14, while the central “adjacent” furniture assembly has been modified by Seitz as taught in claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 6G
With respect to claim 4, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses a wherein the first base (Fig. 1, base 12) and the first upright member (transverse member 14) have a defined spatial relationship, wherein a length (x) of the first base is substantially equal to the sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (Col. 5, lines 47-49, “the length (x) of base 12 is substantially equal to the sum of the width (y) of base 12 and the width (z) of transverse member 14”).
With respect to claim 5, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see modified Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit) comprises a second base (Seitz, Fig. 2, base panels of table unit 12) having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (see modified Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit, is a square shape with a Length (L) and Width (W) identical to the first furniture assembly, where x=y+z as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the Length of the adjacent furniture assembly/table unit would also be equal to the sum of the width of the first base and the width of the first transverse member, or L=y+z).
With respect to claim 6, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see modified Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit) comprises a second base (Seitz, Fig. 2, base panels of table unit 12) having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a width (W) of the second base (White, Figs. 1 and 6G, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit is a square having equal length and width), where (L+2W)/2 is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (Note the Figures of the claimed invention do not show how a casegood unit 10 can have equal length and width where (L+2W)/2=x+y as explained in the 112 rejection above. The claim has been interpreted as describing Fig. 48B as stated in Paragraph 380 of the specification).
With respect to claim 10, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see modified Figs. 6E and 6F below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White including the right-most transverse member 14, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit) comprises a second base (Seitz, Fig. 2, base panels of table unit 12) having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a length (x) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member (see modified Figs. 6E and 6F below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit has a length (L) that is equal to x+z as defined in claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
1017
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figs. 6E & 6F
With respect to claim 11, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see modified Fig. 6G below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit) comprises a second base (Seitz, Fig. 2, base panels of table unit 12) having a spatial relationship, wherein a width (W) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member (see modified Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit, is a square shape with a Length (L) and Width (W) identical to the first furniture assembly, where x=y+z as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the Width of the adjacent furniture assembly/table unit would also be equal to the sum of the width of the first base and the width of the first transverse member, or W=y+z).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 6G
With respect to claim 21, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above except for wherein the casegood furniture assembly and the another casegood furniture assembly are being joined together by a coupler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional casegood furniture assembly (“adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Seitz to be a table unit) and coupler (White, foot coupler 34a) to the modular furniture arrangement in order to provide additional space for users to place items or other articles of furniture such as lamps, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including a plurality of tables are known in the art as made evident by US 5395156, US4060277, US5335962, and CN2678472.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Seitz (U.S. Pub. No. 20020195848) in further view of Hanson (U.S. Pub. No. 20110233976).
With respect to claim 12, White in view of Seitz discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the coupler (foot coupler 34a) comprises a first side and a second side (see modified Fig. 4), the first aperture (74a) being disposed towards a corner where the first side and the second side meet (see modified Fig. 4), a distance of the firs aperture (74a) is located a distance away from the back of the first transverse member that is equal to half the width of the transverse member (see Fig. 5, foot coupler 35 which has identical hole spacing as foot couplers 34 and 34a of Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
763
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 4
The combination fails to disclose a distance a center of the first aperture to one of the first side or the second side being defined by the equation o=z/2 where z is a width of the upright member.
Hanson discloses a coupler (Fig. 6, base coupler 120) comprises a first side and a second side (see modified Fig. 6 below), the first aperture (top-left hole 168) being disposed towards a corner where the first side and the second side meet (see modified Fig. 6 below), a distance a center of the first aperture (top-left hole 168) to one of the first side or the second side being defined by the equation o=z/2 where z is a width of the upright member (Fig. 8 shows the center of top-left hole 168 is located a distance from the first side of base coupler 120 that is equal to half the width of the upright box 102. Note that the base coupler 120 extends along the entirety of upright box 102 and sits flush with the upright box 102).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 6
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot coupler of White such that the coupler is perfectly square with even and proportionate spacing between the apertures and the coupler extends along the entirety of the transverse member (resulting in the center of the aperture at a distance away from the first side equal to z/2 where z is a width of the transverse member), as taught by Hanson, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide better support across the entire width of the transverse member rather than only a portion of the transverse member. This arrangement would further provide easier assembly to a user by not requiring the coupler to be placed at a specific orientation in order to couple the furniture units. For example, the square coupler can be rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees and will still be able to couple the furniture units together.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Chen (CN2678472).
With respect to claim 1, White discloses a furniture assembly system (Figs. 6B-6J) comprising: a first furniture assembly (Fig. 1, furniture assembly 10) comprising a first base (base 12), a first upright member (transverse member 14), and a coupler (Fig. 5A, coupler 15); an adjacent furniture assembly (Figs. 6E-6G show an “adjacent” right-side furniture assembly 10 coupled to the first/left side furniture assembly 10), the adjacent furniture assembly comprising an upper member (right-side furniture assembly 10 has a upper cushion 18); and a coupler (Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) having a first aperture (aperture 74a) and a second aperture (aperture 74d), wherein the first aperture (74a) is configured to receive a first foot of the first furniture assembly (“Col. 11, lines 36, 37, “Apertures 74a-b are sized and configured to receive a foot of base 12”) and the second aperture (74d) is configured to receive a second foot of the adjacent furniture assembly (Col. 11, lines 62-65, “Foot coupler 34a has four apertures 74a-d, enabling foot coupler 34a to be utilized in connection with coupling a base 12 to multiple transverse members 14 and/or bases 12 to form a furniture assembly as shown in FIGS. 6c-6j”).
White fails to disclose the adjacent furniture assembly is a casegood furniture assembly.
Chen discloses a casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 5, right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4) comprising an upper member (cabinet body of right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjacent furniture assembly of White such that it is a cabinet-shaped hand rail, as taught by Chen, in order for users to have an easily accessible storage space for placing items, such as drink or books, when seated in the chair. It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including tables/storage units situated between the seats are known in the art as made evident by US20130255044, US2716775, US7806474, US5630644, and US3093410.
With respect to claim 7, White in view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Chen) further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 5, right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4) comprises a second base (base panel of right-side cabinet shaped handrail 4 that comprises the cabinet feet) wherein the length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to twice the width (W) of the second base, and where the length (L) is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (Fig. 4 shows the right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4 has a width that is substantially half its length, its length being the same as the length of the combined seat cushion 1 with backrest 2). The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the casegood furniture assembly comprises two second bases have a collective spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the two second bases is substantially equal to two times a width (W) of the two second bases, and where two times the width (W) is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional cabinet unit to the modular furniture arrangement (resulting in a casegood assembly with two bases having a length of L=2W=y+z) in order to provide additional space for users to place items or other articles of furniture such as lamps, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
With respect to claim 8, White in view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Chen) further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 5, right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4) comprises a second base (base panel of right-side cabinet shaped handrail 4 that comprises the cabinet feet) wherein the length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to twice the width (W) of the second base, and where the width (W) is substantially equal to half the length (x) of the first furniture assembly (Fig. 4 shows the right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4 has a width that is substantially half its length, and the width being substantially half that of the adjacent seat cushion 1). The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the casegood furniture assembly comprises two second bases have a collective spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the two second bases is substantially equal to two times a width (W) of the two second bases, and where two times the width (W) is equal to the length (x) of the first furniture assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional cabinet unit to the modular furniture arrangement (resulting in a casegood assembly with two bases having a length of L=2W=x) in order to provide additional space for users to place items or other articles of furniture such as lamps, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
With respect to claim 9, White in view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Chen) further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 5, right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4) comprises a second base (base panel of right-side cabinet shaped handrail 4 that comprises the cabinet feet) having a spatial relationship, wherein a width (W) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member dividing by two, such as W=(y+z)/2 (Fig. 4 shows the right-side cabinet-shaped handrail 4 has a width that is substantially half its length, its length being the same as the length of the combined seat cushion 1 with backrest 2).
Claims 1, 13, 14, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Wilson (U.S. Pat. No. 3093410).
With respect to claim 1, White discloses a furniture assembly system (Figs. 6B-6J) comprising: a first furniture assembly (Fig. 1, furniture assembly 10) comprising a first base (base 12), a first upright member (transverse member 14), and a coupler (Fig. 5A, coupler 15); an adjacent furniture assembly (Figs. 6E-6G show an “adjacent” right-side furniture assembly 10 coupled to the first/left side furniture assembly 10), the adjacent furniture assembly comprising an upper member (right-side furniture assembly 10 has a upper cushion 18); and a coupler (Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) having a first aperture (aperture 74a) and a second aperture (aperture 74d), wherein the first aperture (74a) is configured to receive a first foot of the first furniture assembly (“Col. 11, lines 36, 37, “Apertures 74a-b are sized and configured to receive a foot of base 12”) and the second aperture (74d) is configured to receive a second foot of the adjacent furniture assembly (Col. 11, lines 62-65, “Foot coupler 34a has four apertures 74a-d, enabling foot coupler 34a to be utilized in connection with coupling a base 12 to multiple transverse members 14 and/or bases 12 to form a furniture assembly as shown in FIGS. 6c-6j”).
White fails to disclose the adjacent furniture assembly is a casegood furniture assembly.
Wilson discloses furniture assembly system (“divan ensemble”): comprising a first furniture assembly (Fig. 1, divan structure 10) and a casegood furniture assembly (storage unit 12), the casegood furniture assembly comprising an upper member (swingable portion 56 of tabletop element 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjacent furniture assembly of White such that it is a storage unit, as taught by Wilson, in order for users to have an easily accessible storage space for placing or storing items when seated in the chair (Col. 2, lines 61-63). It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including tables situated between the seats are known in the art as made evident by US20130255044, US2716775, US7806474, US5630644, and US20020195848.
With respect to claim 13, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Wilson) further discloses wherein a body member (Fig. 2, bedding chamber 52) comprises a top opening disposed between a first side, a second side, a back, and a front (bedding chamber 52 has a top opening disposed between its front, back, and side walls).
With respect to claim 14, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein a distance between a center of one of the first foot or the second foot (White, Fig. 2, foot 20b of furniture assembly 10 or foot 20a of “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Wilson to be a storage unit) and one of the first side, the second side, the back, or the front is an offset distance (White, Fig. 5B, the feet 20a and 20b are offset from the sides of their respective base, therefore either foot would be offset from a side, back, or front of the of “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Wilson to be a storage unit when arranged next to each other as shown in Fig. 6G).
With respect to claim 19, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Wilson) further discloses wherein the upper member (tabletop element 54) is reversible or non-reversible (swingable portion 56 is shown to be attached via a hinge and limited to open at an angle approximately 90 degrees from horizontal and is therefore non-reversible).
With respect to claim 20, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Wilson) further discloses wherein the upper member (swingable portion 56) is hingedly attached to a base (swingable potion 56 is connected to the bedding chamber 52 and swings/hinges at the center of storage unit 12).
With respect to claim 21, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above except for wherein the casegood furniture assembly and the another casegood furniture assembly are being joined together by a coupler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional casegood furniture assembly (“adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Wilson to be a storage unit) and coupler (White, foot coupler 34a) to the modular furniture arrangement in order to provide additional space for users to place items or other articles of furniture such as lamps, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including a plurality of tables are known in the art as made evident by US 5395156, US4060277, US5335962, and CN2678472.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Wilson (U.S. Pat. No. 3093410) in further view of Hanson (U.S. Pub. No. 20110233976).
With respect to claim 15, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein a distance (A) between a center of the first aperture and a center of the second aperture is substantially equal to twice the offset distance.
Hanson discloses a coupler (Fig. 6, base coupler 120) wherein a distance (A) between a center of the first aperture (top-left hole 168) and a center of the second aperture (top-right hole 168) is substantially equal to twice the offset distance (Fig. 8, the distance from top-left hole 168 to the top-right hole 168 is clearly shown as being twice the distance from the top-left hole 168 to the left edge of the piece of furniture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot coupler of White such that the coupler is perfectly square with even and proportionate spacing between the apertures (resulting in aperture spacing that is twice the length of the distance between an aperture and a furniture’s edge), as taught by Hanson, in order in order to provide support across a greater portion of transverse member, base, or an adjacent/storage furniture unit. This arrangement would further provide easier assembly to a user by not requiring the coupler to be placed at a specific orientation in order to couple the furniture units. For example, the square coupler can be rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees and will still be able to couple the furniture units together.
With respect to claim 16, White in view of Wilson in further view of Hanson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the coupler (White, Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) comprises a third aperture (74b) and a fourth aperture (74c), a center of the third aperture and a center of the fourth aperture being separated by the distance (A) (the foot coupler 34a as modified by Hanson would result in spacing between third and fourth apertures 74b,74c that is equal to the spacing between first and second apertures 74a,74d).
With respect to claim 17, White in view of Wilson in further view of Hanson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the center of the second aperture (White, aperture 74d) and the center of the third aperture (74b) are separated by a distance (A) (the foot coupler 34a as modified by Hanson would result in spacing between second and third apertures 74d,74b that is equal to the spacing between first and second apertures 74a,74d).
With respect to claim 18, White in view of Wilson in further view of Hanson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the center of the first aperture (White, aperture 74a) and the center of the fourth aperture (74c) are separated by the distance (A) (the foot coupler 34a as modified by Hanson would result in spacing between first and fourth apertures 74a,74c that is equal to the spacing between first and second apertures 74a,74d).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Wilson (U.S. Pat. No. 3093410) in further view of Heumann (U.S. Pat. No. 4077666).
With respect to claim 22, White in view of Wilson discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the upper member of the casegood furniture assembly is mounted to a base of the casegood furniture assembly with a gap between the upper member and the base, the gap being configured to receive a portion of the coupler to join the casegood furniture assembly and the another casegood furniture assembly.
Heumann discloses an upper member of a furniture assembly (see modified Fig, 2 below, component 11) is mounted to a base of the furniture assembly (base 12) with a gap (slot 23) between the upper member and the base, the gap (slot 23) being configured to receive a portion of a coupler (connector 20) to join two furniture assemblies (Fig. 2, furniture assemblies are joined together via connector 20).
PNG
media_image5.png
539
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bases/bodies of the storage unit of White in view of Wilson to include slots and couplers, such as taught by Heumann, in order to easily and quickly secure the tops of the storage units together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637