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 .
Election/Restrictions
Because the first claim set, claims 1-8 and 21-22, has been amended, on July 1, 2026, to include a table, all of the claim sets are now drawn to a table; therefore, the restriction requirement, of May 5, 2026, has been withdrawn.
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 1-7, 21 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/914,772 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach a furniture piece, comprising: a first furniture subassembly; a first fitting on the first furniture subassembly; a second furniture subassembly; and a second fitting on the second furniture subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly, wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end; and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot. Wherein the sliding interference slot is one of T-shaped, L-shaped, and dovetail-shaped. Wherein the first fitting and the second fitting snap into place. Wherein the sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width is greater than the first width. For claims 1 and 21, although the co-pending application fails to specifically teach that the furniture piece is a table, table are known furniture pieces with subassemblies and fittings therebetween. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the structure claimed in the co-pending application between members of a table for easy assembly and knockdown. Please note that claims 1-7 and 21-22 do not contain features specific to a table structure. The table limitation is in the preambles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/914,772 in view of Lee (WO2006132499). For claim 8, the co-pending application fails to teach that the sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width is greater than the first width. Lee teaches a sliding interference slot (11) that mates with a tongue (31) and includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward a blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width equal to the first width (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a slot with a consistent width, such as is taught by Lee, in the fitting of the copending application, to provide a consistent connection between the slotted fitting and the tongue of the mating fitting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-16 and 22 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. For claim 1, 9 and 22, it is unclear how the slot itself can provide an interference. It is the tongue within the slot that forms an interference fit.
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, 2, 3, 8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (WO2006132499). Lee teaches a table furniture piece (Fig. 4), comprising: a first furniture subassembly (30); a first fitting (31) on the first furniture subassembly; a second furniture subassembly (10); and a second fitting (11) on the second furniture subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly, wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (11: Fig. 3; the dovetail member within the slot snuggly fitting therein like shown in Fig. 4 inherently providing friction fit, as best understood), and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue (31) slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot. Wherein the sliding interference slot is one of T-shaped, L-shaped, and dovetail-shaped (Fig. 4). Wherein the first fitting and the second fitting snap into place. Wherein the sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width equal to the first width.
Lee further teaches a table furniture piece assembleable without the use of tools, comprising:a first furniture subassembly (30) having a first fitting (31) thereon; and a second furniture subassembly (10) having a second fitting (11) thereon, the second fitting being shaped and sized to be selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly. Wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end, and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot.
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 1-7, 9-15, 17-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (2014/0283716) in view of JP 3110454. Miller teaches a table having a first furniture subassembly (46) and a second furniture subassembly (50). These features are attachable via known hardware (paragraph 0019). For claims 1, 21 and 22, Miller fails to teach the specific hardware between the subassemblies. JP’454 teaches releasable fittings between two adjacent members. There is a first fitting (14; Fig. 5) on a first furniture subassembly and a second fitting (13; Fig. 4) on a second furniture subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly, wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (22a; the tongue 16 of fitting 13 mating snuggly with the groove 22 of 14; thereby, inherently forming a friction fit, as best understood), and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue (16) slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot. The fittings are released from each other via a tab mechanism (including 19, 24; see Figs. 7 and 8). 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 table of Miller by using the fittings/hardware of JP’454 between the subassemblies, to provide a specific connector between the members that is also easily disconnected, when desired. Note the release mechanism would be located slightly below the subassemblies.
Miller in view of JP’454 further teaches that the sliding interference slot is one of T-shaped, L-shaped, and dovetail-shaped (Fig. 4 of JP’454). Wherein the first fitting and the second fitting snap into place (via 24,18). Wherein the first fitting comprises one of a protrusion (24) and a detent and the second fitting comprises the other of the protrusion and the detent (above 18). Wherein the second fitting is attached to the second furniture subassembly. Wherein the sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width greater than to the first width (Fig. 5).
For claim 6, JP’454 further teaches plural fittings between each subassembly (Fig. 1b) to simultaneously secure to the multiple, spaced first fittings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use plural fittings between the subassemblies of Miller, for a more secure attachment. Furthermore it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Miller further teach a table furniture piece (Fig. 3), comprising: a tabletop subassembly (44); a support (50); and a leg subassembly (46). For claim 9, Miller fails to teach the specific hardware between the subassemblies. JP’454 teaches releasable fittings between two adjacent members. There is a first fitting (14; Fig. 5) on a first furniture subassembly and a second fitting (13; Fig. 4) on a second furniture subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly, wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (22a; the tongue 16 of fitting 13 mating snuggly with the groove 22 of 14; thereby, inherently forming a friction fit, as best understood), and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue (16) slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot. The fittings are released from each other via a tab mechanism (including 19, 24; see Figs. 7 and 8). For claim 9, JP-454 further teaches plural fittings between each subassembly (Fig. 1b) to provide simultaneously securement of these members to each other at multiple points. 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 table of Miller by using the fittings/hardware of JP’454 between the two subassemblies and the support (two fitting sections on the support and one on each subassembly), to provide a specific connector between the members that is also easily disconnected, when desired. Note the release mechanism would be located slightly below the subassemblies.
Miller in view of JP’454 further teaches that the sliding interference slot is one of T-shaped, L-shaped, and dovetail-shaped (Fig. 4 of JP’454). Wherein: the first fitting and the second fitting snap into place, or the third fitting and the fourth fitting snap into place (via 24,18). Wherein the first fitting comprises one of a protrusion (24) and a detent and the second fitting comprises the other of the protrusion and the detent (above 18). Wherein the third fitting comprises one of a protrusion (24) and a detent and the fourth fitting comprises the other of the protrusion and the detent (above 18)9. Wherein the first sliding interference slot or the second sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width greater than the first width (Fig. 5).
For claim 14, JP’454 further teaches plural fittings between each subassembly (Fig. 1b) to simultaneously secure to the multiple, spaced first fittings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use plural fittings between the subassemblies (frame of leg subassembly) and support of Miller in view of JP’454, for a more secure attachment. Furthermore it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Miller further teaches a table consisting of: a first leg subassembly (50, front side in Fig. 3); a first support (44,46, front side in Fig. 3) attachable to the first leg subassembly; a first tabletop subassembly (14) attachable to the first support; a second leg subassembly (50, rear side in Fig. 3); a second support (44,46, rear side in Fig. 3) attachable to the second leg subassembly; and a second tabletop subassembly (16) attachable to the first support and the second support; the first leg subassembly, the first support, the first tabletop subassembly, the second leg subassembly, the second support, and the second tabletop subassembly fitting within a package having a total volume within a range (Figs. 4-6). For claim 17, Miller fails to teach that the table can be disassembled without tools and can have a package total volume within the range of about 0.6 - 105 cubic feet. First, JP’454 teaches releasable fittings between two adjacent members (no tools required). There is a first fitting (14; Fig. 5) on a first furniture subassembly and a second fitting (13; Fig. 4) on a second furniture subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the first furniture subassembly to the second furniture subassembly, wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (22a; the tongue 16 of fitting 13 mating snuggly with the groove 22 of 14; thereby, inherently forming a friction fit, as best understood), and the other of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding tongue (16) slidably introducible in the open end of the interference slot. The fittings are released from each other via a tab mechanism (including 19, 24; see Figs. 7 and 8). 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 table of Miller by using the fittings/hardware of JP’454 between the subassemblies and the supports, to provide a specific connector between the members that is also easily disconnected without tools, when desired. Second, it would have been an obvious design consideration to dimension the boxed components of the table so that they make a package total volume within the range of about 0.6- 105 cubic feet, depending on the space available during transport and storage and/or depending on personal preferences. It should be noted that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a structure involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04
Miller in view of JP’454 further teaches that the first leg subassembly is attachable to the first support by snapping into place, and the second leg subassembly is attachable to the second support by snapping into place. Wherein the first leg subassembly is attachable to the first support, the second leg subassembly is attachable to the second support, the first tabletop subassembly and the second tabletop subassembly are each attachable to both the first support and the second support, and the first leg subassembly and second leg subassembly are each configured to abut but not attach to the first tabletop subassembly and second tabletop subassembly.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (2014/0283716) in view of JP 3110454 as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-15 above, and further in view of Lee (WO2006132499). As stated above, Miller in view of JP’454 teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9, including fittings having tongues and slots. Each slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width. For claims 8 and 16, Miller in view of JP’454 fails to teach that each slot includes: a lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width is greater than the first width. Lee teaches a sliding interference slot (11) that mates with a tongue (31) and includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward a blind end, a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening, the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width equal to the first width (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use a slot with a consistent width, such as is taught by Lee, in the fitting of Miller in view of JP’454, for a tighter and consistent connection between the slot and the tongue.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (2014/0283716) in view of JP 3110454 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Liang (5,778,800). As stated above, Miller in view of JP’454 teaches the limitations of claim 17, including two tabletop subassemblies. For claim 20, Miller in view of JP’454 fails to teach that a central aperture covered by at least one of a removable center piece, a removable gel fuel can holder, or a removable Bio-E canister holder is between the tabletop subassemblies. Liang teaches two tabletop subassemblies (10,11) having a central aperture (150) covered by at least one of a removable center piece/cooking means (20,30,40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a central aperture with at least one of a removable center piece/cooking means locatable therein, such as is taught by Liang, between the tabletop subassemblies of Miller in view of JP’454, to provide a means to cook food when at the table. Note: connector 30 of Miller would be doubled and attached between the tabletop subassemblies at each side of the aperture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm 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, 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. 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.
Wilkens
August 14, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights