March 10, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [01]the Specification, under the “CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS”, Applicant needs to insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 12,396,557 B2 - - after “This application claims the benefit of and priority to United States Patent Application No. 63/581,828, filed September 11, 2023, entitled MODULAR FURNITURE AND RECLINING ASSEMBLIES. The present application is also a continuation in part of United States Patent Application No. 18/298,839, filed April 11, 2023,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,557 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,557 B2 claims ‘a base having a width and a depth of different dimensions, the base being selectively couplable to the upright member to form the reclining furniture system, the base comprising: a housing; and a reclining mechanism mountable within the housing, the reclining mechanism configured to selectively move a footrest assembly with respect to the housing; such that the reclining furniture system is selectively operable to provide reclined seating in a shallow seat configuration or a deep seat configuration, as selected by a user.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0143122 A1, now U.S. Patent No. 10,143,307 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
240
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
258
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 4, Nelson et al. teach a reclining assembly for use in a furniture assembly, the reclining assembly comprising: an outer frame 518; a reclining mechanism 510 configured to selectively move a footplate 513 with respect to the outer frame (see Fig. 4D and paragraph [0049] of the Publication where it reads “…..the recliner mechanism 534 selectively moving the footrest assembly 513 with respect to the housing 518.”), wherein the reclining mechanism is configured to be selectively docked within the outer frame (see paragraph [0039] of the Publication of the where it reads “As shown in FIGS. 1A-1B, the furniture system 500 is a sofa comprised of: (i) a modular furniture assembly 10; and (ii) a reclining assembly 510 positioned adjacent the modular furniture assembly 10 and selectively coupled thereto in a unified, aesthetically pleasing manner …..”) .
As for claim 5, Nelson et al. teach that the outer frame 518 is a substantially U-shaped frame.
Claims 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0066786 A1, U.S. Patent No. 12,089,744 B2).
As for Claim 4, Zhao et al. teach a reclining assembly for use in a furniture assembly, the reclining assembly comprising: an outer frame; a reclining mechanism configured to selectively move a footplate with respect to the outer frame, wherein the reclining mechanism is configured to be selectively docked within the outer frame. A reclining assembly ( Fig. 11) for use in a furniture assembly (as the furniture is modular, it can be attached to another piece, for example in Fig 5 using clips 4; see also col 17, at line 14: (see Fig. 11 and the paragraph [0112] of the Publication where it reads “Transverse module 80 has feet 82 mounted thereto. Clip 86, as described herein, is utilized to couple a foot mounted on the recliner module to a foot mounted on the transverse module to thereby couple the first module and the second module. A connecting member 84, as further described herein and with reference to FIG. 12, is mounted on the transverse furniture module and inserted into a slot in a seating surface of the frame assembly of the recliner furniture module to additionally couple the transverse module to the recliner module.” an outer frame (at least one of 80); a reclining mechanism (recliner module 70) configured to selectively move a footplate (footrest 76) with respect to the outer frame, wherein the reclining mechanism is configured to be selectively docked within the outer frame (The following describes how they are selectively docketed: Col 17, lines 14-25: A connecting member 84, as further described herein and with reference to FIG. 12, is mounted on the transverse furniture module and inserted into a slot in a seating surface of the frame assembly of the recliner furniture module to additionally couple the transverse module to the recliner module.).
As for Claim 6, Zhao et al. teach that the outer frame is an adjustable frame that can have different shapes and configurations to thereby occupy substantially the same amount of footprint space as a furniture member to which the frame is selectively coupled (see Figures 6A-10).
As for Claim 7, Zhao et al. teach that the furniture member is a seat base member of a modular furniture system.
As for Claims 8-10, Zhao et al. further comprises (i) a clamp 23 configured to connect the outer frame to a furniture member; and (ii) a securing member extending through a portion of the clamp to further secure the clamp to the adjustable outer frame; wherein the clamp has a first leg and a second leg connected by a clamp body, and wherein the securing member is a threaded thumb screw having a threaded portion that threadably extends through one of the first or second legs of the clamp into the adjustable frame; wherein the furniture member connected by the clamp to the adjustable frame is an upright backrest member 14 of a modular furniture system (see Fig. 5).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 11-13, 18, 22-24, 26, 29, 33, 39, and 56-58 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach an adjustable outer frame having a wide mode and a deep mode; and a reclining mechanism, the reclining mechanism having (a) a lower carriage portion having a lower carriage portion framework to which a first actuator is attached; (b) an upper carriage portion linked to the first actuator, the upper carriage portion being selectively movable relative to the lower carriage portion, the upper carriage portion having an upper carriage portion framework and being configured to recline a cushion supported by the reclining mechanism and to selectively move a footplate away from the upper carriage portion framework, wherein the reclining mechanism is selectively connected to the adjustable outer frame in either the wide mode or the deep mode, as defined in Claims 11 and 56.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636