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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 July 2026.
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite a “sliding interference slot.” It is unclear how “interference” is intended to be interpreted here. That is, is the language intended to specify an interference fit? The claims further recite “the interference slot,” which lacks proper antecedent basis (though for purposes of examination has been treated as the sliding interference slot).
Claim 5 recites “the second fitting is attached to the second furniture subassembly.” As the second fitting is introduced in claim 1 as “on the second furniture subassembly,” it is unclear how this is to be interpreted. Is “attached” merely requiring a definite connection rather than proximity?
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 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 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.
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) 1, 2, 5-9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US Patent Number 11484122).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a furniture piece, comprising: a first furniture subassembly (3); a first fitting (12) on the first furniture subassembly; a second furniture subassembly (2); 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 (this is the general arrangement), wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (11 provides a “sliding interference slot” at least as best understood with an open end at a top and blind end at a bottom as in Figure 1), 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 (12 forms such a sliding tongue). While Chen is thus viewed as anticipating the claim limitations, an interference fit may not be explicitly described. Such are old and well-known in the art however (see US 2021/0068547 to Hodgson for instance showing an interference fit between members 14 and 16), and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such a fit based on normal variation to increase strength and stability to improve user safety and comfort.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses a chair furniture piece (it would function as such), comprising: a side subassembly (3); a first fitting (12) on the side subassembly; a seat subassembly (2); and a second fitting (11) on the seat subassembly, the second fitting being selectively attachable to the first fitting to secure the side subassembly to the seat subassembly (this is the general arrangement), wherein one of the first fitting and the second fitting is a sliding interference slot with an open end and a blind end (11 provides a “sliding interference slot” at least as best understood with an open end at a top and blind end at a bottom as in Figure 1), 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 (12 forms such a sliding tongue). While Chen is thus viewed as anticipating the claim limitations, an interference fit may not be explicitly described. Such are old and well-known in the art however (see US 2021/0068547 to Hodgson for instance showing an interference fit between members 14 and 16), and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such a fit based on normal variation to increase strength and stability to improve user safety and comfort.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Chen further discloses the sliding interference slot is one of T- shaped, L-shaped, and dove-tail shaped (based on the figures, it forms a dove-tail shape). Note that while Chen’s figures are viewed as disclosing the claimed shape, even if this were not clear, changes in shape require only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a shape as claimed based on normal variation to improve fit, assembly, and support for various users.
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses the second fitting is attached to the second furniture subassembly.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Chen further discloses the first furniture/side subassembly comprises a first frame having multiple, spaced first fittings thereon, and wherein the second furniture/seat subassembly comprises a second frame having multiple, spaced second fittings spaced thereon to simultaneously secure to the multiple, spaced first fittings (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Chen further discloses the sliding interference slot includes: a lengthwise opening extending from the open end toward the blind end (the opening at an edge of rails 112), a lengthwise recess accessible through the lengthwise opening (the recess defined within rails 112), the lengthwise opening having a first width and the lengthwise recess having a second width greater than the first width (see at least Figure 1).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0155509). Chen discloses and/or renders obvious furniture as explained above but does not disclose details of the fittings. Smith discloses a related device including a first fitting and a second fitting that snap into place (62 and 64 snap together at least based on 72, 94), wherein the first fitting comprises one of a protrusion and a detent and the second fitting comprises the other of the protrusion and the detent (protrusion 94 and detent 72). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide fitting details as taught by Smith in Chen’s device because this could improve user security, safety, and comfort.
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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/911040 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide the arrangement on various types of furniture.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights