DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 19, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claims 17-18, 21 & 23-24, use of the term "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rending the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 17-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullman Jr., [US 4,258,464]. Ullman teaches of a furniture module (fig. 6), comprising: two opposing side walls (opposing (74’s)) being interconnected by a rear wall panel arrangement (76), a shelf (72) configured to be positioned between the side walls and along a top portion (upper portion) of the side walls (shown), wherein the shelf is provided with a front dowel (forward most dowels (22)) on each side of the shelf and a central dowel (dowels (22) within the main section of the shelf and rearward of the forward dowels) on each side of the shelf, wherein the front dowel on each side of the shelf extends a first distance from the respective side of the shelf to a respective free end of the respective dowel (shown in fig. 7 with a prescribed extending distance) and the central dowel extends on each side of the shelf a second distance from the respective side of the shelf to a respective free end of the respective dowel (shown in fig. 7 with a prescribed extending distance), and wherein the front dowel and the central dowel are each configured to be inserted into associated front and central recesses (28’s) of a respective portion of the side walls. Ullman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed furniture module as mapped above, but does not show the first distance as being greater than the second distance. However, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements (such as when the front dowels are not fully seated within the shelf mounting holes (82), as an example, and therefore the dowels would extend out from the shelf a greater distance for instance) depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size, configuration or relative distances relating to components. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As to Claim 18, each of the opposing side walls comprises the front recess and the central recess which are formed on an inwardly facing major surface facing the opposing side wall and which are positioned in a front portion (note fig. 6), respectively a central portion of the respective side wall, wherein the front recesses and the central recesses each comprises an insertion portion (42) and a locking portion (44) extending from the insertion portion in a shelf sliding direction (viewed along a horizontal sliding direction) wherein the rear wall panel arrangement is configured to allow the opposing side walls to assume a shelf installation position (such a position is shown in fig. 6 where the rear wall panel arrangement is not fully seated to the module for instance) in which front portions of the side walls are at a greater horizontal distance from each other than a horizontal distance between rear portions of the side walls thereby allowing the shelf to be inserted by a movement at least partly along the shelf sliding direction until the dowels reach the respective associated front and central recess and, after the respective dowel has been inserted into the insertion portion of the respective front and central recess, be further moved along the shelf sliding direction such that the respective dowel is transferred into the locking portion of the respective front and central recess (such as when the side panels are positioned relative to the shelf and side panels located on the dowels and the shelf is slide horizontally until the dowels fully seat within (44) for example). As to Claim 20, each dowel comprises, as seen along a longitudinal extension of the respective dowel extending from the respective side of the shelf to a respective free end of the respective dowel, a stem (such as a portion of (30)) having a stem width followed by a least one dowel ridge (such as (32)), the dowel ridge having an extension in a radial direction of the respective dowel and extending along at least a portion of a circumference of the respective dowel (fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullman, Jr., in view of Andersson et al., [US 9,447,804]. Ullman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed module as outlined above, including the respective insertion portion of each front and central recess having an insertion portion width as measured in a direction being transverse to a depth direction and being transverse to the shelf sliding direction (shown), wherein the respective first locking portion and the respective second locking portion of each front and central recess has opposing recess side walls, which faces each other and which each has an extension along the depth direction and along the shelf sliding direction (shown); but Ullman does not show the inclusion of a ridge and valley structure as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Andersson is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of opposing recess side walls being provided with at least one ridge with each ridge being located at a ridge depth, as seen along a depth direction, and having a longitudinal extension along a shelf sliding direction and a height extending from the respective recess side wall towards an opposing ridge of the opposing recess side wall, and at least one valley located at a valley depth, the valley depth being greater than the ridge depth, wherein a locking portion width formed by a shortest distance between opposing ridges is smaller than the insertion portion width and is smaller than a shortest distance between opposing valleys (note the interconnecting dowel and recess structures as shown in figs. 14A-17 for instance, showing aspects of recess side walls) in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ullman so as to include ridges and valleys within the side walls recesses in view of Andersson’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by ensuring proper seating of the dowels within the recesses, whereby the dowel may be forced into a more close-fitting position with respect to the recess.
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 17-18 & 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 9-10 & 12-13 of co-pending Application No. 18/865,419 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features of the instant application are accounted for within the reference application. For instance, the claimed subject matter relating to Claims 17-18 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claims 1 & 9-10; while the claimed subject matter relating to Claim 21 is set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 12, while the claimed subject matter relating to Claim 22 is set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pending a properly filed Terminal Disclaimer, Claims 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various furniture module joining arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, 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. 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.
JOH
July 25, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights