DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 (line 2) “profile” should recite –profiles--.
In claim 7 (line 4) “first second” should recite –first section--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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 1-10 are 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 (lines 11-12) recites “wherein the furniture assembly remains entirely in a laying position during the assembly of the main panels”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structurally constitutes a “laying position” of the furniture assembly during assembly of the main panels. It is unclear as to whether such position requires a specific horizontal or vertical position or orientation of each of the panels relative to a specific ground or support surface, or whether such position merely requires that one of the panels is laying against a support surface. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the main panels further include a centre panel with the same configuration as the side panels”.
Figure 14 clearly shows that centre panel E and side panels A,B are not identical; and thus the centre panel does not have “the same configuration as the side panels”. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what Applicant intends for such limitations to define.
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 1-3, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (US 305,286).
As to claim 1 as best understood, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly comprising:
a plurality of main panels A,B,C,D,F interconnected to each other via a first fastening mechanism b,e and a second fastening mechanism c,d;
wherein the first fastening mechanism includes one or more pinholes b on at least one of the main panels and one or more pins e extended from at least one of the main panels to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary pinholes;
wherein the second fastening mechanism includes one or more groove channels d on at least one of the main panels and one or more projecting tongue profiles c extended from at least one of the main panels to engage with, and being inserted in, the complementary groove channels; and
wherein the furniture assembly remains entirely in a laying position during the assembly of the main panels (main panels A,B,C are lay against a support surface during assembly thereof; Figures 1-4).
As to claim 2, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein the main panels include:
a rear panel B having a plurality of pinholes b of the first fastening mechanism;
a pair of side panels C, each having a first edge with a plurality of pins e of the first fastening mechanism configured to engage and insert into the pinholes of the rear panel, and a second edge, adjacent to the first edge, with a projecting tongue c profile of the second fastening mechanism;
a top panel D having a plurality of groove channels d of the second fastening mechanism configured to engage and slidably receive the projecting tongue profiles of the side panels (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 3, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein each side panel C comprises a third edge, opposing to the first edge, with a plurality of pins e of the first fastening mechanism, and a second supporting members A having a plurality of pinholes b of the first fastening mechanism configured to engage and receive the pins on the third edge of the side panels (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 5 as best understood, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein the main panels further include a centre panel F with the same configuration as the side panels C (both centre panel F and side panels C extend between and are rigidly affixed to front and rear panels A,B; thus the centre panel and side panels functionally have “the same configuration”; Figures 1-4).
As to claim 9, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly comprising a third fastening mechanism b,e for attachment of at least one first supporting panel E to the main panels A,B, whereby the third fastening mechanism includes at least one first attachment member b attached to at least one of the main panels, and a tongue profile e extended from the at least one first supporting panel, the first attachment member includes a groove profile b that is complementary to the tongue profile so that the tongue profile can engage with and being inserted into the complementary groove profile (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 10, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein the groove profile b includes a closed end b’ for preventing the first supporting panel E from overextending while the tongue profile e is sliding within the groove profile (Figures 1-4).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Louther, Jr. (US 4,110,946).
As to claim 4, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein the rear panel B comprises a central panel X (Figure 2 reprinted below with annotations).
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
229
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Campbell fails to disclose a furniture assembly wherein the central panel of the rear panel is a foldable panel, whereby the foldable panel comprises a pair of board bodies hinged by a flexible strip, allowing the board bodies to flap between a folded configuration and an expanded configuration.
Louther, Jr. teaches a furniture assembly wherein a rear panel 10 is a foldable panel, whereby the foldable panel comprises a pair of board bodies 18,20 hinged by a flexible strip 26, allowing the board bodies to flap between a folded configuration and an expanded configuration; the foldable panel providing for easier manufacturing, shipping and assembly of the rear panel (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, 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 furniture assembly disclosed by Campbell wherein the central panel of the rear panel is a foldable panel, as taught by Luther, Jr., in order to provider for easier manufacturing, shipping and assembly of the rear panel.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Puehlhorn (US 5,803,561).
As to claims 6 and 7, Campbell fails to disclose a furniture assembly wherein at least one groove channel d of the second fastening mechanism includes a second section; wherein at least one of the projecting tongue profile c has a dovetail tongue configuration, and the second section is a dovetail groove configuration that are complimentary to the dovetail tongue configuration.
Campbell fails to disclose a furniture assembly wherein the groove channel includes a first section, whereby the first section has a square groove configuration with a cross-sectional area wider than the second section, is configured to initially receive one portion of the projecting tongue profile with a wider tolerance of insertion angles than the second section and to subsequently guide the projecting tongue profile to slide towards the second section at a designated orientation.
Puehlhorn teaches a furniture assembly wherein a groove channel 34 of a fastening mechanism includes a first section A and a second section B (Figure 4 reprinted below with annotations), whereby the first section has a square groove configuration with a cross-sectional area wider than the second section having a dovetail groove configuration, is configured to initially receive one portion of a projecting tongue profile 30 with a wider tolerance of insertion angles than the second section and to subsequently guide the projecting tongue profile to slide towards the second section at a designated orientation; the wider square configuration of the first section providing for easier insertion and assembly of the projecting tongue profile within the groove channel (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, 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 furniture assembly disclosed by Campbell wherein the groove channel comprises a wider square configuration first section, as taught by Puehlhorn, in order to provide for easier insertion and assembly of the projecting tongue profile within the groove channel.
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
303
98
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Ng (US D1,074,411).
As to claim 8, Campbell discloses a furniture assembly wherein the first fastening mechanism comprises pin-keyhole connections comprising pins e and pinholes b; instead of serrated pin-hole connections, wherein each pin includes a first portion and a second portion, both of which have serrated circular protrusions, the diameter of the serrated circular protrusions on the first portion is larger than those on the second portion.
Ng teaches a furniture assembly wherein a pin of a first fastening mechanism includes a first portion A and a second portion B (Figure 4 reprinted below with annotations), both of which have serrated circular protrusions, the diameter of the serrated circular protrusions on the first portion is larger than those on the second portion (Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
292
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Inasmuch as the references disclose pin-keyhole connections and serrated pin-hole connections as art recognized structural and functional equivalents for rigidly coupling furniture panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the exercise art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
06/08/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights