DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Heller does not disclose that “the longitudinal guiding arrangement or the engagement arrangement attached to the structural element is arranged off-centered to a thickness extension of the structural element”. In support of this argument, Applicant points to Figures 3 and 4 (Examiner believes Applicant means Figures 2 and 4), stating “it is clear that members (h) are very much centrally aligned on the frame (c) with respect to the thickness of the structural element (c).” Examiner disagrees.
Col. 2, line 70 discloses that Figure 4 is a fully upholstered member c, meaning it is upholstered on both sides. Figure 4, reproduced below and annotated to highlight the structural element, shows bedding upholstery on top and couch upholstery on the bottom. It is clear from the Figure that the longitudinal guiding arrangement or the engagement arrangement attached to the structural element is indeed arranged off-centered to a thickness extension of the structural element, as it is shown towards the bottom of the structural element, closer to the couch upholstery than the bedding upholstery.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Heller
Applicant additionally argues that Heller does not disclose a chamfer provided at one end of the structural element as is now claimed. Examiner disagrees. As is shown in Figure 4, the structural element (c) is chamfered on all four corners as all the corners are rounded, and not sharp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP 3,329,976 (Heller hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Heller discloses an attachment arrangement (h, i) for attaching a structural element (c) to a supporting element (a) of a piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) operable between multiple configurations, the attachment arrangement (h, i) comprising:
a longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) for attachment to one of the structural element (c) or the supporting element (a), and
an engaging arrangement (h) for attachment to the other of the structural element (c) or the supporting element (a);
the engaging arrangement (h) comprising a first engagement member (h) and a second engagement member (h) operable to, when used in the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4), engage the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) to provide a translation and a rotation of the structural element (c) in relation to the supporting element (a) between a first configuration and a second configuration (col. 1 line 57-col. 2 line 17) of the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4),
wherein the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) or the engagement arrangement (h) attached to the structural element (c) is arranged off-centered to a thickness extension of the structural element (c) (see Fig. 4 which shows the engagement arrangement (h) off-center relative to the thickness).
With regard to claim 2, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 1, when used in the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4), the first engagement member (h) is configured to provide a pivot point for rotation from the first configuration to the second configuration (col. 1 line 57-col. 2 line 17), and the second engagement member (h) is configured to provide a pivot point for rotation from the second configuration to the first configuration (col. 1 line 57-col. 2 line 17).
With regard to claim 3, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 1, wherein the first engagement member (h) and/or the second engagement member (h) is a rolling engagement member (col. 2 lines 55-62).
With regard to claim 4, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 1, wherein the first engagement member (h) and/or the second engagement member (h) is a sliding engagement member (col. 2 lines 55-62).
With regard to claim 5, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) is provided with a first longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) operable to, when used in the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4), support the engaging arrangement (h).
With regard to claim 6, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 5, wherein the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) is further provided with a second longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) arranged substantially parallel to the first longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below), wherein the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) is operable to, when used in the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4), sandwich one of the engagement member (h, h) of the engaging arrangement (h) between the first longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) and the second longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) during the translation of the structural element (c) in relation to the supporting element (a).
With regard to claim 7, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 6, wherein the second longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) is shorter than the first longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) providing a longitudinal opening (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) in the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) through which, when used, the first engagement member (h) and the second engagement member (h) are operable to pass.
With regard to claim 8, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 7, comprising two longitudinal openings (230, 240), wherein one longitudinal opening (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) is provided at each longitudinal end of the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) and a longitudinal distance between the longitudinal openings (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) is the same as a longitudinal distance between the first engagement member (h) and the second engagement member (h) (This is inherent in that the rotation of the article would not be possible otherwise).
With regard to claim 9, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 6, wherein the first longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) and/or the second longitudinal member (see Annotated Fig. 3, below) is formed with a U-shaped cross-section (col. 2 lines 63-70).
With regard to claim 10, Heller discloses the attachment arrangement (h, i) of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) is provided with a longitudinal stop member (the side boards of (a) act as stop members) configured to prevent the engagement member (h, h) from, when engaging the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i), travel beyond the stop member (the side boards of (a) act as stop members).
With regard to claim 11, Heller discloses a piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) operable between multiple configurations, the piece of furniture comprising the structural element (c), the supporting element (a) and the attachment arrangement (h, i) according to claim 1 configured to attach one side of the structural element (c) to the supporting element (a) and to provide the translation and the rotation of the structural element (c) in relation to the supporting element (a) between the first configuration and the second configuration (col. 1 line 57-col. 2 line 17) of the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4).
With regard to claim 13, Heller discloses the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) of claim 11, comprising two attachment arrangements (h, i), one arranged at each side of the structural element (c) and configured to attach the structural element (c) to the supporting element (a).
With regard to claim 14, Heller discloses the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) of claim 11, wherein the structural element (c) is formed with a chamfer at one end along the extension of the attachment arrangement (h, i). See Fig. 4 showing the mattress inset from the rest of the structure, providing the chamfer to allow rotation.
With regard to claim 15, Heller discloses the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) according to claim 11, wherein the one or more longitudinal guiding member (i) are attached to the supporting element (a).
PNG
media_image2.png
271
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Heller
With regard to claim 19, Heller discloses an attachment arrangement (h, i) for attaching a structural element (c) to a supporting element (a) of a piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4) operable between multiple configurations, the attachment arrangement (h, i) comprising:
a longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) for attachment to one of the structural element (c) or the supporting element (a), and
an engaging arrangement (h) for attachment to the other of the structural element (c) or the supporting element (a);
the engaging arrangement (h) comprising a first engagement member (h) and a second engagement member (h) operable to, when used in the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4), engage the longitudinal guiding arrangement (i) to provide a translation and a rotation of the structural element (c) in relation to the supporting element (a) between a first configuration and a second configuration (col. 1 line 57-col. 2 line 17) of the piece of furniture (Fig.’s 1, 2, 4),
wherein the structural element (c) is formed with a chamfer at one end of the structural element along an extension of the attachment arrangement (h, i). See Annotated Fig. 4 (above) showing the chamfered corners of the structural element (c).
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.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of USP 5,222,286 (Saul et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 16, Heller discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the piece of furniture comprises one or more backrests.
Saul et al. teaches a piece of furniture (col. 4 lines 4-18 discloses chairs, sofas, loveseats) wherein the backrest (18) is adjustable (col. 2 lines 14-25, col. 4 lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Heller by providing an adjustable backrest ,using the attachment mechanism already devised by Heller, as taught in Saul et al. for the purposes of providing the user an adjustable backrest in order to increase the user’s comfort (Abstract of Saul et al.).
With regard to claim 17, the Heller modification with regard to claim 16 discloses the piece of furniture according to claim 16, wherein at least one of said one or more seats is a structural element (c) attached to the supporting element (a) by the attachment arrangement (h, i).
With regard to claim 18, the Heller modification with regard to claim 16 discloses the piece of furniture according to claim 16, wherein at least one of said one or more backrests is a structural element (c) attached to the supporting element (a) by the attachment arrangement (h, i).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673