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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims do not end with periods as is required. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 claim 1, the limitation “table board single bodies (100), wherein the table board single body (100)” is not clear because it can’t be determined if the claim is reciting one table board single body or more than one table board single body.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent table board single bodies" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the table board single body (100) is provided with two,” is not clear because it can’t be determined what is provided with two.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the first assembly part (212) is provided with two,” is not clear because it can’t be determined what is provided with two.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the second assembly part (232) is provided with two,” is not clear because it can’t be determined what is provided with two.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gapp (US patent 9,445,664).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Gapp discloses a detachable folding table board, wherein the detachable folding table board is used for being placed on a table to enlarge the supporting area of the table, comprising: table board single bodies (22, 24), wherein the table board single body is provided with at least two, and at least two of the table board single bodies are combined into a complete table board (12); the table board single body can be folded; and lock catch structures (84, 90), wherein the lock catch structures are arranged between the adjacent table board single bodies; when at least two of the table board single bodies are combined, the lock catch structures are used for locking and buckling the adjacent table board single bodies (Col. 3: 16-27)
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Gapp discloses a detachable folding table board the table board single body is provided with two, which are a first folding board (22) and a second folding board (24) respectively.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Gapp discloses a detachable folding table board the lock catch structure comprises: a first lock body (86), wherein the first lock body is fixedly installed on the first folding board: a second lock body (86), wherein the second lock body is fixedly installed on the second folding board, and the second lock body and the first lock body are arranged on the same side; a first locking piece (88), wherein the first locking piece is installed on the first lock body, and the first locking piece can move relative to the first lock body to extend out of the first lock body and be inserted into the second lock body and a second locking piece (88), wherein the second locking piece is installed on the second lock body, and the second locking piece can move relative to the second lock body to extend out of the second lock body and be inserted into the first lock body.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gapp in view of Valeriote (US patent application publication 2010/0139531).
Regarding claims 1-3/10, Gapp discloses the folding table board as claimed. Gapp does not disclose a folding table board wherein the first folding board and the second folding board both comprise: first sub-boards and second sub-boards, and the first sub-boards and the second sub-boards are rotatably assembled through articulation pieces; both the first sub-board and the second sub-board are fan-shaped bodies with an angle of 90 degrees. Valeriote teaches a folding table board comprising first sub-boards and second sub-boards (Fig. 4), and the first sub-boards and the second sub-boards are rotatably assembled through articulation pieces; both the first sub-board and the second sub-board are fan-shaped bodies with an angle of 90 degrees (Figs. 1-4). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Gapp wherein the first folding board and the second folding board both comprise: first sub-boards and second sub-boards, and the first sub-boards and the second sub-boards are rotatably assembled through articulation pieces; both the first sub-board and the second sub-board are fan-shaped bodies with an angle of 90 degrees in view of Valeriote’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637