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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 04/30/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I. (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benoit (DE 202020101382).
Regarding claim 1, Benoit discloses a bracket 1 for interconnecting two furniture parts S,B, the bracket 1 having a first end and a second end (as seen in Fig. 6 below), and a base (as seen in Fig. 6 below) with a lower surface for facing and interconnection with a first furniture part S and an upper surface, the bracket 1 having at least one wall element 7 projecting from the upper surface (as shown in Fig. 6 below), and for facing and interconnection with an identical second bracket 1 arranged on a second furniture part B (as seen in Fig. 9), the at least one wall element 7 and the base 1 defining a channel (as seen in Fig. 5 below) configured to receive and interconnect with at least one wall element 7 of the second bracket 1, and the bracket 1 further comprising a fixed stop (as shown in Fig. 5 below) within the channel at a central longitudinal position of the bracket 1, for interacting with an identical stop on the second bracket 1 (see Figs. 7-9), for preventing movement between the brackets 1,1 beyond the stop, characterized in that wherein the channel is open at the first and second end, such that the at least one wall element 7 of the second bracket 1 may be is inserted into the channel from either end.
Regarding claim 2, Benoit discloses the bracket 1, where the at least one wall element 7 comprises a connection flange (as seen in Fig. 5 below) extending from the wall element 7 at an upper end thereof, such that when the bracket 1 has been connected to the second bracket 1, the connection flange (as seen in Fig. 5) prevents the brackets 1,1 from being disengaged in a direction transverse in relation to a longitudinal direction of the channel (as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Benoit discloses the bracket 1, where the connection flange only spans part of a longitudinal direction of the bracket 1.
Regarding claim 4, Benoit discloses the bracket 1, where the stop (shown in Fig. 5 below) is arranged on at least one of the connection flange, the wall element 7, or the base 1 in the channel between the connection flange and the upper surface of the base 1 (as seen in Fig. 6 below).
Regarding claim 8, Benoit discloses a system comprising: a bracket 1 according to claim 1, and the second bracket 1 (as seen in Figs. 7-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
213
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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: The prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the brackets of claim 1, where an upper part of the at least one wall element comprises a concave shape, or where the bracket comprises a first wall element extending along a first side of the base, and a second wall element extending parallel with the first wall element towards an opposite second side of the base, the second wall element extending a shorter distance along the base compared to the first wall element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the fixed stop does not prevent movement between the brackets in a longitudinal direction beyond the stop when joined” and “slip-on fittings”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to the Applicant’s argument that “the slip-on fittings of Benoit do not disclose a fixed stop positioned within the channel of the bracket,” the Examiner submits the following. As shown in Annotated Fig. 5 above, the Examiner depicts the claimed “fixed stop.” Therefore, it is submitted that Benoit discloses the claimed limitations of the fixed stop being positioned within the channel of the bracket. The rejections stand as stated above.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Benoit’s stop “does not interact with an identical stop on a second bracket,” the Examiner submits the following. Figs. 7-9 of Benoit disclose how the fixed stop slides into the channel of an identical bracket. Therefore, it is submitted that Benoit discloses the claimed limitations of the fixed stop positioned within the channel of the bracket. The rejections stand as stated above.
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 MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 9-Jul-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights