Furniture fitting

DETAILED ACTION General Information The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Foreign Priority Priority Documents are not contained in the application at this time. The applicant must submit the original certified copy of the claimed Foreign Application No. CA239299, filed 04/08/2025, as required per 37 CFR 1.55, in order to meet the requirements of 35 USC 119. In general, an attempt to retrieve an eligible foreign application will be made by the USPTO when the application is docketed to an examiner. If the electronic copy of the priority document is not contained in the application at the time of the first Office action the applicant should verify that the priority claim (country, application number and filing date) indicated on the filing receipt is accurate and that the filing receipt includes the “Request to Retrieve” text. If the filing receipt reflects the accurate foreign priority claim and WIPO DAS access code, if applicable, the applicant should contact the Patents Electronic Business Center (EBC) and request that the matter be escalated to determine why the priority document is not yet in the file. EBC Customer Support Center 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free) 751-272-4100 (local) M-F 6AM-Midnight (Eastern Time) Email: PDX@uspto.gov Note that the applicant continues to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued. For more information, please visit: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-dociment-exchange-pdx Restriction Not Required This application discloses the following embodiments: Embodiment 1: REPS. 1.1-1.9 Embodiment 2: REPS. 2.1-2.9 Embodiment 3: REPS. 3.1-3.9 Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments. Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint-inventors regard as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claimed design cannot be clearly understood from the combination of representations and written descriptions provided. The claimed subject matter cannot be understood for the following reasons: The feature description included at the end of the specification confuses the scope of the claimed design. Specifically, the description included refers to appearances of the claimed design that are not shown in the representations. Therefore, the additional appearances and configurations of the claimed design the applicant is describing cannot be understood from the following description: -- “…a fin-shaped protrusion of the article varies in length within the break lines as illustrated in the third variant of the article.” -- This statement attempts to claim all lengths possible, and not all possible lengths are shown in the representations. MPEP 1503.01(II) establishes that “Statements which describe or suggest other embodiments of the claimed design which are not illustrated in the drawing disclosure, except one that is a mirror image of that shown or has a shape and appearance that would be evident from the one shown, are not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent. However, such statements may be included in the design application as originally filed to provide antecedent basis for a future amendment. In addition, statements which attempt to broaden the scope of the claimed design beyond that which is shown in the drawings are not permitted.” Additionally, MPEP 1504.04(I)(A) states “if a description in the specification refers to embodiments or modified forms not shown in the drawing, or includes vague and non-descriptive words such as "variations" and "equivalents," or a statement indicating that the claimed design is not limited to the exact shape and appearance shown in the drawing, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs), as nonenabling and indefinite. The reason being the description fails to enable a designer of ordinary skill in the art to make an article having the shape and appearance of those other embodiments, modified forms or "variations" and "equivalents" referred to in the description in the absence of additional drawing views. Furthermore, in the absence of additional drawing views, the description, which is incorporated into the claim, fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the shape and appearance of those other embodiments, modified forms or "variations" and "equivalents" that applicants regard as their invention.” Therefore, the claimed design cannot be understood from the written descriptions provided. Furthermore, because the applicant has shown the wavy break lines in REPS. 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 - 3.8 with solid lines, the applicant is currently claiming that exact shape, configuration, and appearance of the article, because everything shown in solid lines in the representations forms part of the claimed design. See annotated drawing: PNG media_image1.png 570 405 media_image1.png Greyscale In order to overcome this rejection, the inventor or joint-inventors may attempt to amend the disclosure to clarify the claim by removing any written descriptions of appearances, configurations and combinations of features of the claimed design that are not shown in the representations. Furthermore, the applicant must amend the wavy break lines in REPS. 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 - 3.8, to be shown in dash-dash broken lines if the applicant does not intend to claim the exact wave shaped edges shown in solid lines as the appearance of the claim. The examiner recommends the following acceptable description language: -- “The design is the visual features of the article as shown in the accompanying drawings; the application contains three variants of the design; the portions shown in broken lines do not form part of the claimed design; The dashed broken wave lines, shown in REPS. 3.1, 3.2, and 3.5 - 3.8, represent a symbolic break in length, and those symbolic break lines, and portions between the break lines, form no part of the claimed design.” -- When preparing new drawings, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything that could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The claim stands rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b). Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL BOHANNON whose telephone number is 408-918-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 6 PM, CST. 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 at (571) 270-0248 or jennifer.rempfer@USPTO.GOV. 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. Discussion of the Merits of the Application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or In-person Interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below: “If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at: Catherine.ho@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.” Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: • Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources • Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration • Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings) • Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions Note that correspondence received will appear in Public PAIR, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair /PAUL D BOHANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2932