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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 21 and 23 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.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “optionally” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193).
Regarding claim 1, Derelov et al. teaches a joinery product, shown in figure 11, comprising a first joinery element 10 having a first edge surface (figure 11), a second edge surface (figure 11), and a first joinery element surface (figure 10), wherein said second edge surface is adjacent to said first edge surface (figure 10), and wherein a first attaching surface is at least part of said first edge surface or said second edge surface (figure 10), a second joinery element 20 having a second joinery element surface (figure 11), a third joinery element surface (figure 11), a third edge surface (figure 10), and a fourth edge surface (figure 11), wherein a second attaching surface is at least part of one of said second joinery element surface, the third edge surface or the fourth edge surface, wherein the first attaching surface faces and is configured to be locked with the second attaching surface in a locked position (figure 10), a third joinery element 40 positioned in a joinery element groove (figure 13), wherein the joinery element groove (shown at lead line 23) is formed in the one of said second joinery element surface, third edge surface or fourth edge surface (figure 13), which comprises the second attaching surface and in a thereto adjacent surface of the first joinery element that is adjacent to the one of said second joinery element surface, third edge surface or fourth edge surface (figures 10, 11, 13), and a mechanical locking device comprising a dowel 31 protruding at a dowel angle (a1) from the first attaching surface, an insertion recess 32 extending into the second attaching surface (figure 10), said insertion recess 32 being configured to receive said dowel 31, a compressible locking element 34 positioned partially in a first joinery element recess 38 in the first attaching surface, and a locking recess 35 in the second attaching surface being configured to receive said compressible locking element 34 (figure 10),wherein a locking surface of said locking recess in the locked position is configured to cooperate with the compressible locking element for locking of the first joinery element 10 relative to the second joinery element 20 in directions in the plane of the first attaching surface (figure 10),wherein the inclination of said dowel counteracts displacement of the first joinery element 10 relative to the second joinery element 20 along the normal direction of the first attaching surface, and a locking member 50 arranged in the joinery element groove ay 23,wherein the third joinery element 40 is locked in the joinery element groove by the locking 50 member to counteract rotational displacement of the first joinery element relative to the second joinery element in directions in the plane of the first attaching surface.
Regarding claim 2, the joinery element groove 32 comprises a locking member groove configured to house the locking member 50 (figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, the locking member 50 is arranged in a locking member groove provided in the joinery element groove 23 (figure 13).
Regarding claim 6, the compressible locking element 34 is arranged closer to the third joinery element 40 than the dowel (figure 6).
Regarding claim 7, the dowel 31 is arranged further from the third joinery element than the compressible locking element 34 (figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, the compressible locking element 34 in an uncompressed state partially protrudes from the first attaching surface (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 9, the compressible locking element 34, in a compressed state, is configured to be substantially accommodated within the first joinery element recess (page 8 lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 10, the compressible locking element 34 is, in the locked position, configured to be displaced partly into the locking recess (page 8 lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 11, said compressible locking element 34 and said dowel 31 are positioned on a straight line extending in a longitudinal extent of the first attaching surface (figure 10).
Regarding claim 13, the dowel angle a1 of the dowel relative to the first attaching surface is in a range of 20°-75° (page 8 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 14, said insertion recess extends into the second attaching surface at a recess angle a2 from the second attaching surface and the difference between the dowel angle and the recess angle is in a range of 0° to 6° (page 8 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 15, a side of the joinery element recess 38, being adjacent to the first attaching surface, extends at a joinery element recess angle relative to the first attaching surface (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 16, the joinery element recess angle is in a range of 70°-110° (“third angle”; page 8 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 17, a difference between the dowel angle a1 and the joinery element recess angle is 10°-100° (page 8 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, the locking member 50 has a longitudinal shape with a length direction parallel to a length direction of the joinery element groove (figure 13).
Regarding claim 23, a core material of one or more of the first, second and third joinery elements comprises a wood fibre based board, optionally one of HDF, MDF, plywood, solid wood or particleboard, a reinforced plastic board, and a wood fibre composite board (page 16 lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 24, the core material is provided with a decorative layer (page 16 lines 29-30).
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.
Claims 3 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) in view of Derelov et al. (U.S. 2020/0069049).
Regarding claim 3, Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) discloses the claimed invention except for the locking member being an elongate flexible tongue. Derelov et al. (U.S. 2020/0069049) teaches that it is known to provide a product with the locking member being an elongate flexible tongue (see figures 16-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the product of Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) with the locking member being an elongate flexible tongue, as taught by Derelov et al. (U.S. 2020/0069049), in order to provide a locking member than can accommodate panels of varying thicknesses.
Regarding claim 19, the locking member 50, in the form of a flexible tongue, is configured to be compressed towards a bottom surface of the locking member groove, as modified by Derelov et al. (U.S. 2020/0069049) (see paragraphs [0088]-[090], figure 9 of U.S. 2020/0069049) .
Regarding claim 20, the flexible tongue is made of a polymer material (paragraph [0092] of U.S. 2020/0069049).
Regarding claim 21, the joinery product is one of a cupboard or a drawer, optionally a kitchen drawer (page 1 lines 1-5).
Claims 5, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193).
Regarding claim 5, Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) discloses the claimed invention but teaches additional dowels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the product of Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) with a single dowel, in order to reduce material costs and since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 12, Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) discloses the claimed invention except for the compressible locking element and said dowel are arranged at a distance of less than 30 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the product of Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) with the compressible locking element and said dowel are arranged at a distance of less than 30 mm, in order to limit movement once the joinery elements are engaged and since it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) discloses the claimed invention except for a height of the joinery product being 30-120 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the product of Derelov et al. (WO 2020/046193) with a height of the joinery product being 30-120 mm, in order to store a desired amount of contents and since it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the locking members.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights