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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Comment to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and arguments/remarks filed on May 14, 2026 have been reviewed and considered.
The amendment has overcome the specification objection set forth in the previous
office action. The reference to the appendix in the specification has been removed. The Title has been changed throughout the application, original oath and declaration excepted to read: “Furniture Section”.
The remarks directed to traversing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103
are found unconvincing and the rejection is given again and made FINAL.
Drawing Objection
Drafting Error
As shown in the annotated Figs. 5 and 6 below, the arrows point out some blue lines which make the broken lines appear as solid lines. Correction is required to show these lines consistently either in broken lines or solid lines between and among all drawing views.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
708
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Replacement Drawings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) . If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejection 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.
Applicant has claimed the design embodied in less than the entire article. The practice of claiming a design embodied in less than the entire article was confirmed in the decision of In re Zahn, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). This practice also opens to the examiner the liberty of relying upon the features of a reference embodied in less than the entire article. The examiner has done so in the following rejection.
The claim is AGAIN and FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent D941602, to Stephanie Lin (hereafter Lin), published January 25, 2022, because 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 appearance of Lin reference is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
PNG
media_image3.png
218
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
145
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claimed Design
Lin, 1/25/2022
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,' so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway , 589 F.3d at 1243 (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Claim Rejection - 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.
A design may be embodied in less than the entire article, as applicant has also shown in the appendix drawings. In re Zahn, 204 U.S.P.Q. 988 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it is reasonable to compare such a design to prior art embodied in less than the entire article. In a design patent application, the subject matter claimed is the design for an article and not of an article, and may therefore be embodied in only a portion. It is understood that the appearance of any part of the article not shown in the drawing or described in the specification forms no part of the claimed design. Therefore, the determination of patentability is based on the design for the article shown and described."
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent D951664, to TongPei Song (hereafter Song), published May 17, 2022, in view of US Patent D761583, to Jim H. Warren (hereafter Warren), published July 19, 2016.
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
The Song reference has design characteristics that are basically the same as the claimed design in that they both show a sofa module that has:
straight and flat surfaces on three(3) vertical sides;
a slanted and flat surface on the top portion on one side;
parallel and flat top and bottom surfaces;
all rounded corners and soft edges;
See figures below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
218
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
591
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claimed Design
Song, 5/17/2022
The claim differs from the Song reference in having the same slanted surface connecting with a vertical flat surface appearance on both ends of the sofa module. The Warren reference teaches a sofa armrest module that shows the same appearance on both sides.
See figures below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
218
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
334
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claimed Design
Warren, 7/19/2016
Having an appearance of a slanted surface connecting with a vertical flat surface feature on a sofa or a sofa module, whether on an armrest or a backrest, is common and well-established in the art of sofa industry, as evidenced by the cited FOR references WO D202118-051 and AU 346875, US Patents 2852787, D181771, D103416, 2022/0346561, 2010/0244537, 2010/0270844, 2024/0016299, 2010/0244536, D640481, D893215, D737594, D640480, D930383, and D1074230. In addition, the Song and Warren references establish that there is a known technique within the sofa art, which would allow a designer of ordinary skill to make this appearance as shown in the claim, on both sides of a sofa module.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the Song reference to show the same appearance on both sides of the sofa module as taught by the Warren reference, because such a modification is a simple deployment of known methods and substitution of a known design element to yield predictable results. Accordingly, the overall visual appearance of the claimed design is found to be obvious over the Song reference in view of the Warren reference.
The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Claim Rejection - 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.
A design may be embodied in less than the entire article, as applicant has also shown in the appendix drawings. In re Zahn, 204 U.S.P.Q. 988 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it is reasonable to compare such a design to prior art embodied in less than the entire article. In a design patent application, the subject matter claimed is the design for an article and not of an article, and may therefore be embodied in only a portion. It is understood that the appearance of any part of the article not shown in the drawing or described in the specification forms no part of the claimed design. Therefore, the determination of patentability is based on the design for the article shown and described."
The claim is AGAIN and FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONBAY Armrest Module (hereafter HONBAY), available March 1, 2024, in view of US Patent D761583, to Jim H. Warren (hereafter Warren), published July 19, 2016.
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
The HONBAY reference has design characteristics that are basically the same as the claimed design in that they both show a sofa module that has:
straight and flat surfaces on three(3) vertical sides;
a slanted and flat surface on the top portion on one side;
parallel and flat top and bottom surfaces;
all rounded corners and soft edges;
See figures below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
218
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
672
525
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claimed Design
HONBAY, 9/10/2020
The claim differs from the HONBAY reference in having the same slanted surface connecting with a vertical flat surface appearance on both ends of the sofa module. The Warren reference teaches a sofa armrest module that shows the same appearance on both sides.
See figures below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
218
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
334
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claimed Design
Warren, 7/19/2016
Having an appearance of a slanted surface connecting with a vertical flat surface feature on a sofa or a sofa module, whether on an armrest or a backrest, is common and well-established in the art of sofa industry, as evidenced by the cited FOR references WO D202118-051 and AU 346875, US Patents 2852787, D181771, D103416, 2022/0346561, 2010/0244537, 2010/0270844, 2024/0016299, 2010/0244536, D640481, D893215, D737594, D640480, D930383, D1074230, and D951664. In addition, the HONBAY and Warren references establish that there is a known technique within the sofa art, which would allow a designer of ordinary skill to make this appearance as shown in the claim, on both sides of a sofa module.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the HONBAY reference to show the same appearance on both sides of the sofa module as taught by the Warren reference, because such a modification is a simple deployment of known methods and substitution of a known design element to yield predictable results. Accordingly, the overall visual appearance of the claimed design is found to be obvious over the HONBAY reference in view of the Warren reference.
The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Comment to Arguments and Remarks
In the remarks filed in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) on 05/14/2026 , applicant’s argument that the Lin reference significantly differs from the claimed design is respectfully disagreed.
As shown in the annotated drawings below, the highlighted portions do NOT support applicant’s remarks that “ a section that is angled on one side and straight on the opposing side). Instead, the highlighted portions show a section that has angles on both sides as shown in the claimed design.
PNG
media_image8.png
468
661
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1805
670
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In the remarks filed in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on 05/14/2026 , applicant’s arguments that the primary references Song and HONBAY, combined with secondary reference Warren “would not result in the same overall appearance as the claimed design” are respectfully disagreed.
Song and HONBAY as the primary references is proper to be relied upon to teach the overall appearance of having the same slanted surface connecting with a vertical flat surface on both ends of the sofa module, as shown in the claimed design. Warren as the secondary reference is proper to be relied upon teach a sofa armrest module that shows the same appearance on both sides.
As established in the rejection, although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAWEN WIECHERT whose telephone number is 703-756-1727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Rempfer can be reached on 571-270-0248. 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.
/Q.W.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/MARY ANN CALABRESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2931
Prosecution Insights