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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. After further consideration the prior art of DeBruin, DeBruin does teach the new limitations at least in figs. 25E, 26A, and 26B, as discussed below. All limitations in the claims are taught by the prior arts of record. The combination, as a whole, would have been obvious in order to yield the well-known predictable results of enabling a furniture foot’s adjustment tool to operate as ratchet type wrench with arms and edges for making the tool function more efficient, and permitting effortless adjustment of the furniture foot without disengagement of the tool. For the reasons discussed above the rejections are still deemed proper.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henke DE 202018105370 U1 in view of Anderson US 2,401,128 and Hayes Jr. US 9,694,481 and Stoick WO 2004/043652 and De Bruin US 11,786,035 B2.
Henke teaches a tool 10 for controlling a controlled element 20 of a height-adjustable foot of a furnishing item, comprising:
an engagement portion 30; and
a handle 18 for rotating said engagement portion,
two arms 14 extending from said handle and defining a cavity configured to embrace said controlled element 20 of said height-adjustable foot to keep the tool and the engagement portion laterally associated with the height-adjustable foot,
wherein said engagement portion 30 is arranged between said two arms 14 to embrace and become engaged with said controlled element 30 and to be inserted into radial septa 28 of said adjustable foot so as to rotate said adjustable foot,
wherein said engagement portion comprises a tooth 30, said tooth being configured to be engaged within said radial septa 28 that converge towards a central axis of said adjustable foot,
Henke does not teach said tooth having a wider lower body facing an interior of the handle and a narrower upper body facing the cavity, wherein a seat is defined within the handle between said two arms, said seat receiving said tooth and housing a spring pushing on said tooth so that said tooth can slide within the seat along a longitudinal axis of the handle, said seat having, at an end facing the cavity, an abutment surface that provides a run-end for the wider lower body of the tooth
Anderson teaches multiple pawls including two side teeth 20 and wherein teeth 20 having a wider lower body and a narrower upper body facing the cavity, wherein a seat 21 receiving said tooth 20 and housing a spring pushing on said tooth so that said tooth can slide within the seat 21. Hayes Jr. teaches in fig. 3A, a post 80 having a wider lower body 80D facing an interior of a handle 60 and a narrower upper body 80B facing a cavity, wherein a seat 62 is defined within the handle 60, said seat receiving a post 80 and housing a spring 82 pushing on the post so that said post can slide within the seat along a longitudinal axis of the handle 60, said seat having, at an end facing a cavity 64B, an abutment surface 62C that provides a run-end for the wider lower body 80C of the post.
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate a furniture adjustment tool and sliding teeth pushed by a spring within a seat along a longitudinal axis towards a run-end abutment surface such that it acts as a pawl to adjust a control element of a furniture’s foot into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the pawl and sliding teeth of Anderson, the sliding post of Henry Jr., and the tool of Henke into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since no inventive effort would have been required. The resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the pawl, sliding teeth, and the adjustment tool would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Henke’s adjustment tool with Anderon’s pawl and sliding teeth, and Henry’s Jr. abutment surface, in order to yield the predictable result of enabling a furniture foot’s adjustment tool to operate as ratchet type wrench and make it more efficient, and effortless by permitting adjustment of the furniture foot without disengagement of the tool.
Furthermore, Henke. teach wherein the narrower upper body of the tooth has a free end and a side facing one of the two arms that has an arched and rounded shape rising towards said free end.
Alternatively, Henke, Anderson, and Hayes Jr. do not teach wherein the narrower upper body of the tooth has a free end and a side facing one of the two arms that has an arched and rounded shape rising towards said free end. However, Stoic teaches in fig. 3A, wherein a narrower upper body of the tooth 26 has a free end and a side 32 facing an arm 22 has an arched and rounded shape rising towards said free end. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the arched and rounded shaped tooth of Stoic in Henke to yield the predictable result of adjusting a controlled element with a corresponding rounded groove (pg. 5, ll. 14-17).
The combination of Henke above does not teach two arms extending from said handle in outwardly diverging direction for said handle and from each other, and wherein at least portions of said two arm have upper and lower edges protruding toward an interior of said cavity, said upper and lower edges providing housing and centering seats for peripheral parts of said height-adjustable foot.
DeBruin teaches two arms extending from said handle in outwardly diverging direction for said handle and from each other (see fig. 45) and wherein at least portions of said two arm have upper 56 and lower 66 edges protruding toward an interior of a cavity 68 [fig. 25E], said upper and lower edges providing housing and centering seats for peripheral parts of said height-adjustable foot [figs. 26A-26B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outwardly diverging arms of DeBurin with the tool of Henke in order to yield the predictable result of capturing the foot laterally to releasably retain the tool to the foot in a lateral direction to releasably maintain engagement between the driving member and the driven member as the driving member drives the driven member for height adjustment of the leg. [“jaw 63 formed by lateral extensions 56 may be described as being C shaped. In some embodiments the jaw extends around diameter 14 of the foot by 180 degrees, or less than 180 degrees, to capture the foot laterally to releasably retain the tool to the foot in a lateral direction to releasably maintain engagement between the driving member 51 and the driven member 13 as the driving member drives the driven member for height adjustment of the leg 1”]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the upper housing and lower centering seat edges of DeBurin with the tool of Henke in order to yield the predictable result of improving engagement with the controlled element.
Regarding claim 12, Henke further teaches wherein said two arms 14 define a fork shaped body. DeBruin teaches a fork shaped body (fig. 45).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson teaches a blind hole as part of spring-pressed pawls 20. Hayes Jr. teaches a blind hole 62, 68 (figs. 3A). DeBruin teaches in fig. 10, a fork-shaped body 50 including a blind hole [space for receiving rod 65] defined therein, said blind hole being provided obtained in an axial position in the handle for receiving an actuation rod 65 of the tool.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723