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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/2/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 10517390, 10820688, & 11324310 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two flanges each disposed at one of four top edges of the elongated box (cl. 24); and the four flanges are disposed at the four edges of the elongated box to form a continuous circumferential flange (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 26-27, these claims recite the following limitations “wherein the elongated box comprises at least two flanges, each flange is disposed at one of four top edges of the elongated box” (claim 26); and “wherein four flanges are disposed at the four edges of the elongated box to form a continuous circumferential flange” (claim 27). However, these limitations lack support in the original disclosure of the instant application. The originally-filed drawings and written description of the instant application neither show, state, nor necessarily imply the presence of two flanges, four flanges, or a “continuous circumferential flange” disposed at any top edge of an elongated box. Admittedly, Figs. 10 & 12 of the drawings of the instant application do show an elongate-shaped box (26). So do Figs. 1 & 3 of Chinese Patent Application No. 201610378869.9, to which the instant application claims foreign priority. However, none of these figures, nor any other portion of the drawings, provides any indication that this elongate-shaped box is accompanied by flanges. Such flanges are also unmentioned in the written descriptions of either the instant application or parent U.S. Patent No. 10517390, 10820688, & 11324310. Nor is the presence of such flanges necessarily implied by the original disclosure of either the instant application or its parents. Hence, the aforementioned limitations constitute new matter.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25, the term “the lower platform” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is indefinite because it recites a configuration inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.03(⁋ 2). In particular, the claim recites “wherein the elongated hole and the elongated box are positioned within a first 25% of a length measured from the front edge of the lower platform toward a rear edge of the lower platform”. This language seemingly implies that the elongated hole & elongated box are positioned on the lower platform. However, in Figs. 10 & 12 of the drawings and par. 58-59 of the written description, the elongated box (26) and elongated hole (25) are shown and described as being on the upper platform/desk plate (10), not the lower platform (12). Clarification is required. For examination purposes, and consistent with the drawings & written description of the instant application, the examiner is considering the above limitation to mean “wherein the elongated hole and the elongated box are positioned within a first 25% of a length measured from the front edge of the [desk plate] toward a rear edge of the [desk plate]”.
Regarding claim 26, the term “the upper platform” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this phrase to refer to the same component(s) as “a desk plate” in this claim.
Claim 27 indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 14, & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (20160249737) in view of Huang (5931103) & Flaherty (20150250303).
Regarding claims 1 & 20, Han teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including an elevation working platform, comprising a desk plate/upper platform (110) and an elevation working platform body (120), the elevation working platform body having an upper support (121), a lower support (121’) and at least one group of elevating components (122) connected between the upper support and the lower support, the desk plate/upper platform is arranged on the upper support (Figs. 1-2), and each group of elevating components being configured to adjust the height of the desk plate/upper platform in related to the lower support (Figs. 5 & 7), and wherein the elevation working platform is configured to be disposed on (Figs. 8-9 & par. 66-67) a table or a desk (100’). Han fail(s) to teach an elongated hole or elongated box; or a lower platform & connecting plate.
However, Huang teaches the inclusion, in a desk plate (10), of storage means (11, 21, 24) comprising an elongated hole (11) and an elongated box (21) engaged in the elongated hole (Fig. 5); a top of the elongated box is provided with an opening (i.e., opening defined by upper edges of 21 - see Fig. 3); and the elongated box is capable of being used to place tablet electronic devices (see col. 2, lines 45 & 56-57);1 wherein the elongated hole (11) and the elongated box (21) are positioned/disposed at the front side/portion (P in Fig. 1 Annotated from Huang - see Fig. 1 & col. 2, lines 31-32),2 which is located at a side closer relative to a user (see Fig. 1 Annotated from Huang), of the desk plate (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add storage means, as taught by Huang, to the desk plate/upper platform of Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make charging cables accessible to users of the platform, while increasing the storage capacity thereof (as suggested by Fig. 5 & col. 2, lines 50-63 of Huang).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Flaherty teaches the inclusion, in an elevation working platform body (Fig. 22), of support means (70A, 106, 108, 110 - see Fig. 22) comprising a lower platform (70A) arranged at a front side (Fig. 22) of an upper platform (10) and at least a part of the lower platform protrudes from the upper platform (Figs. 22-23), the lower platform is connected (via 110) to an (11) upper support by two connecting plates (106, 108) disposed respectively at a left side and a right side of the lower platform (Fig. 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add support means, as taught by Flaherty, to the structure of Han as modified, in order to facilitate easier assembly & transportation of the elevation working platform as well as replacement of the desk plate (as suggested by par. 73 of Flaherty); and to provide both additional storage capacity (as suggested by par. 68 & 73 of Flaherty) and improved ergonomics (as suggested by par. 70 of Flaherty).
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches a locking component (140), which is used to releasably lock the desk plate at any height (par. 31); a lever (130) is arranged underneath the desk plate, and the lever is connected (via 132 – see Fig. 3) with the locking component; the locking component is connected (via 122b’ and 142c) with the elevating components (122); one can operate the lever to unlock the locking component to allow the elevating components to move (Figs. 3 & 6 and par. 53-61).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches each group of elevating components (122) that comprises a first support rod (A in Fig. 2 Annotated) and a second support rod (B) hinged (at 122’) to a central portion of each other to form an X-shape (Fig. 2), the lower support (121’) comprises a first hinging seat (C) fixedly connected thereto and a second hinging seat (D) slidable relative to the lower support, the upper support (121) comprises a third hinging seat (E) fixedly connected thereto and a fourth hinging seat (F) slidable relative to the upper support, a lower end (at 122a) of the first support rod (A) is hinged to the first hinging seat (C), an upper end (at 122b’) of the first support rod is hinged to the fourth hinging seat (F), a lower end (at 122b’) of the second support rod (B) is hinged to the second hinging seat (D), an upper end (at 122a) of the second support rod is hinged to the third hinging seat (E), and the elevation working platform comprises an elastic component (123-124), and the elastic component bears at least a part of the weight of the upper support (par. 49).
Regarding claim 14, Han as modified teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including at least one group of elevating components (122) comprises two groups of elevating components (122) arranged on two sides of the upper support (121); but fail(s) to teach a horizontal plate. However, Flaherty teaches a horizontal plate (110) that connects (Figs. 22 & 24) two groups of elevating components (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a horizontal plate, as taught by Flaherty, to the structure of Han as modified, in order to facilitate easier assembly & transportation of the elevation working platform as well as replacement of the desk plate (as suggested by par. 73 of Flaherty).
Regarding claim 24, Huang teaches a unitary chamber (211) with an upward opening (i.e., opening bounded by upper edges of 21 & 219) that is enclosed by the elongated box (Figs. 3 & 5), the unitary chamber is configured to place tablet electronic devices (see col. 2, lines 45 & 56-57). Note that, since Huang’s chamber (211) is not separated or subdivided into smaller spaces, said chamber can therefore be reasonably characterized as “unitary”.
Regarding claim 25, Han as modified teaches a desk plate (110 of Han), an elongated hole (11 of Huang) and an elongated box (21 of Huang). Additionally, mere rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify elevation working platform of Han as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by repositioning the elongated hole and elongated box to be within the frontmost 25% portion of the desk plate, in order to improve user convenience by making the contents of the elongated box more accessible to users of the desk plate, and depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the elevation working platform (e.g., intended use of the elevation working platform, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Han as modified would teach an elongated hole (11 of Huang) and an elongated box (21 of Huang) positioned within a first 25% of a length measured from the front edge of the desk plate (110 of Han) toward a rear edge of the desk plate (110 of Han).
Claims 5-7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (20160249737), Huang (5931103) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Huang (CN204541230).
Regarding claim 5, Han as modified teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including an elastic component (123-124); but fail(s) to teach an elastic component arranged between a lower support and a first support rod. However, Huang ‘230 teaches an elastic component (5) arranged between a lower support (4) and a first support rod (3), the first end (H in Fig. 3 Annotated) of the elastic component is hinged to the lower support, and the second end (G) of the elastic component is hinged to the first support rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an elastic component, as taught by Huang ‘230, for each of the elastic components of Han as modified, in order to facilitate raising & lowering of the desk plate.
PNG
media_image3.png
348
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, mere reversal & rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and the instant application fails to recite any specific rationale for connecting the elastic component between the second hinging seat & second support rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate each of the elastic components of Han as modified to extend between the second hinging seat & second support rod, in order to facilitate raising & lowering of the upper support, and in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of the platform by reducing the visibility of the elastic components. Hence, Han as modified would teach an elastic component (5 of Huang ‘230) arranged between the second hinging seat (D of Han) and the second support rod (B of Han), the first end (H of Huang ‘230) of the elastic component is hinged to the second hinging seat, and the second end (G of Huang ‘230) of the elastic component is hinged to the second support rod.
Regarding claims 7 & 16, Huang ‘230 teaches an elastic component (5) that is a compressed gas spring (5) or a compressed mechanical spring.
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (20160249737), Huang (5931103) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Weritz (DE4032674).
PNG
media_image4.png
394
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Han as modified teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including an elastic component (123-124); but fail(s) to teach an elastic component arranged between the lower support and the second support rod. However, Weritz teaches an elastic component (e) arranged between a lower support (f-h) and a second support rod (J in Fig. 1 Annotated from Weritz), a first end (K) of the elastic component is hinged to the lower support, and a second end (L) of the elastic component is hinged to the second support rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an elastic component, as taught by Weritz, for each of the elastic components of Han as modified, in order to facilitate raising & lowering of the desk plate.
Regarding claim 10, Weritz teaches an elastic component (e) that is a stretch gas spring or a tension spring (see p. 1 of English Translation of Weritz).
Claims 9 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (20160249737), Huang (5931103) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Ergun (20150289641).
Regarding claim 9, Han as modified teach(es) the structure substantially as claimed, including an elastic component (123-124); but fail(s) to teach an elastic component arranged between the second hinging seat and the first support rod. However, Ergun teaches an elastic component (157) arranged between (Fig. 12) a fourth hinging seat (128) and a second support rod (126). Additionally, mere reversal & rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and the instant application fails to recite any specific rationale for connecting the elastic component between the second hinging seat & first support rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace each of the elastic components of Han as modified with an elastic component, as taught by Ergun, arranged between the second hinging seat and the first support rod, in order to facilitate raising & lowering of the desk plate.
Regarding claim 17, Ergun teaches an elastic component (157) that is a stretch gas spring or a tension spring (see par. 66).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (20160249737), Huang (5931103) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Pierce (5231562). Han as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a desk plate (110 of Han) & an elongated box (21 of Huang); but fail(s) to teach flanges. However, Pierce teaches the inclusion, on an elongated bezel (18) fitted in an elongated hole (20), of four flanges (24), each flange is disposed at one of four top edges of the elongated bezel (Figs. 3 & 10), and the elongated bezel is engaged in the elongated hole with the at least two flanges abutting against a desk plate (14); wherein the four flanges are disposed at the four edges of the elongated bezel (Figs. 3 & 10) to form a continuous circumferential flange (Figs. 1-2 & 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add flanges, as taught by Pierce, to the elongated box of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional support to the elongated box while also improving the aesthetics of the elevation working platform by providing a cleaner, more finished appearance to the elongated box & desk plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
1 In col. 2, lines 45 & 56-57, Huang states, “The casing 21 includes a chamber 211 . . . . the chamber 211 [can] receive pens, rubbers or other objects.” Pens and rubbers (i.e., erasers) typically have a diameter or thickness similar the thickness of a smartphone or tablet computer. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that portions (e.g., a bottom or side edge) of tablet electronic devices (e.g., smartphones, tablet computers) could be placed within Huang’s box (21).
2 Note that Huang has two “plates”: A desk plate (10), and a cover plate (20). In col. 2, lines 30-32, Huang mentions two possible alternative embodiments for the desk plate (10), cover plate (20), elongated box (21), & elongated hole (11): 1) “The plate 20 may include a larger size”; and 2) “the casing 21 may be provided in the middle portion of the plate 20.” In this second alternative embodiment, Huang effectively teaches positioning the elongated box (21) and elongated hole (11) at a front side/portion of the desk plate (10). The term “middle” is commonly understood to mean “equally distant from the extremes”; see Reference U. Hence, in Huang’s second alternative embodiment, the middle portion of the cover plate (20) - and thus the elongated box (21) - would be positioned along solid line “M” in Fig. 1 Annotated from Huang, which is equally distant from the front & rear extremes edges of the cover plate (20). Moreover, this middle portion (M) is also positioned in the front portion/side (P) of Huang’s desk plate (10), and forward of the midpoint (denoted by dashed line “N” in Fig. 1 Annotated from Huang) of the desk plate (10). Furthermore, clearly shown in Fig. 1 Annotated from Huang, the middle portion (M) is not positioned in the rear portion/side (Q) of the desk plate (10), or rearward of the midpoint (N) of the desk plate (10). Hence, by stating that “the casing 21 may be provided in the middle portion of the [cover] plate 20”, col. 2, lines 31-32 of Huang essentially teaches disposing an elongated box (21) at a front portion/side (P) of the desk plate (10). And since the elongated hole (11) occupies the same position (see Figs. 2 & 4) on the desk plate (10) as the elongated box (21), Huang therefore teaches an elongated hole (11) and an elongated box (21) that are positioned/disposed at a front portion/side (P) of a desk plate (10).
Prosecution Insights