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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/20/2025. These drawings are acceptable and the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Specification
The abstract received on 8/22/2023 is accepted and the objection is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 41 is 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.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein the guide element is interchangeable, so that guide elements with different thicknesses can be inserted into the guide device depending on outer dimensions of the first hollow profile element and the second hollow profile element to compensate for manufacturing tolerances.”
It is unclear whether the invention requires a guide element (as claimed in claim 1) or if the invention requires a plurality of guide elements of difference thicknesses.
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knapp (U.S. Pat. No. 5791233).
With respect to claim 21, Knapp discloses a lifting column for a height-adjustable work table, comprising: a first hollow profile element (Fig. 18, outer section 52); a second hollow profile element (inner section 51); and a guide device (guide element 79 with helical bodies 85) arranged on the first hollow profile element (52) and having a guide element (plate 80) which can be releasably connected to the guide device (Fig. 19, plate 80 has openings 84 for receiving the projection 86 of helical bodies 85), wherein the first hollow profile element (52) and the second hollow profile element (51) are arranged such that they can be telescoped relative to one another (Col. 6, lines 6-8, “inner section 51 is guided to move in somewhat larger outer profile 52 in the manner of a telescope”), wherein the first hollow profile element (52) encloses the second hollow profile element (51) at least in sections, wherein the second hollow profile element (51) is displaceable in a displacement axis parallel to a vertical axis of the first hollow profile element (inner section 51 moves in and out of outer profile 52 along a vertical axis), and wherein a guide element surface (Figs. 18 and 19, strip-shaped slide coating 82 within recesses 81 of plate 80) of the guide element (80) bears against an outer surface of the second hollow profile element (Fig. 18, side coating 82 bears against outer surface of inner section 51), and wherein the guide element surface (slide coating 82) is made, at least in sections, of a soft material whose hardness is lower than that of the second hollow profile element (Col. 9, lines 54-63, “the slide coatings preferably of a high-strength plastic or metal-plastic material, thus preventing metallic contact and yielding very quiet and good sliding behavior…By means of these guide elements 79 and 79' is it possible to use commercial, unworked steel sections for the respective guide or for the inner and outer section”, therefore plastic slide coatings are softer than the steel inner and outer sections 51 and 52).
With respect to claim 22, Knapp further discloses wherein the first hollow profile element and the second hollow profile element are rectangular (Fig. 18, inner and outer sections 51 and 52 are rectangular), and wherein the guide element (plate 80) is one of a plurality of guide elements arranged along a circumference of the second hollow profile element (Fig. 18 shows four plates 80 arranged along the circumference of outer section 52).
With respect to claim 23, Knapp further discloses wherein the guide element is plate-shaped and has a rectangular cross-section (Figs. 18 and 19, plate 80 is plate shaped with a rectangular cross-section), and wherein the guide element (80) is configured to absorb a predominant proportion of wear caused by friction between the guide element surface (slide coatings 82) and the outer surface of the second hollow profile element (Col. 9, lines 55-57, slide coatings 82 of plate 80 “prevent[s] metallic contact and yield[s] very quiet and good sliding behavior”, the slide coatings being a softer material allows plate 80 with slide coatings 82 to absorb caused by the sliding of hard, steel inner section 51), and wherein the guide element (80) is configured to be replaced when worn (plate 80 is fixed into position by helical bodies 85 and is therefore capable of being replaced when worn by removing helical bodies 85).
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (U.S. Pat. No. 5791233).
With respect to claim 26, Knapp discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the guide element is made entirely of the soft material, and wherein the soft material is copper or brass or an alloy containing copper or brass.
In an alternative embodiment, Knapp discloses a guide element (Fig. 13, guide pieces 55) is made entirely of a soft material, and wherein the soft material is copper or brass or an alloy containing copper or brass (Col. 6, lines 21-22, “Guide pieces 55 which are made preferably of hard metal, for example, of bronze” bronze being an alloy that contains copper).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plate of Knapp to be made of bronze such as taught in the alternative embodiment with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide durable guide plates that allow the inner column section to easily slide in and out of the outer column section, and to further prevent damage to the inner section.
Claims 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody (U.S. Pub. No. 20190059572) in view of Meinunger (U.S. Pat. No. 3453011) in further view of Hodge (U.S. Pat. No. 5039043).
With respect to claim 21, Moody discloses a lifting column for a height-adjustable work table, comprising: a first hollow profile element (Fig. 21, frame post 101); a second hollow profile element (Fig. 21, leg 195); and wherein the first hollow profile element (frame post 101) and the second hollow profile element (leg 195) are arranged such that they can be telescoped relative to one another (Fig. 21 shows 101 and 195 arranged telescopically), wherein the first hollow profile element (frame post 101) encloses the second hollow profile element (leg 195) at least in sections, wherein the second hollow profile element (leg 195) is displaceable in a displacement axis parallel to a vertical axis of the first hollow profile element (Fig. 21 shows inner portion 195 is displaced along vertical axis relative to frame post 101 via driveshaft 199, and leveling mount 211 via nut 212). Moody further discloses a guide device (Fig. 22, play remover 223) that bears against an outer surface of the second hollow profile element (play remover 223 guides inner portion 195 toward the frame post 101 to remove play).
Moody fails to disclose the guide device having a guide element arranged on the first hollow profile element which can be releasably connected to the guide device, and wherein a guide element surface of the guide element bears against an outer surface of the second hollow profile element.
Meinunger discloses a support device (Abstract, “adjustable support”) having a guide device (Fig. 1, threaded housing 4) arranged on the first hollow profile element (leg segment 1) having a guide element (disc 6) which can be releasably connected to the guide device (Fig. 1 shows disc 6 situated within threaded housing 4), and wherein a guide element surface (contact member 5) of the guide element (disc 6) bears against an outer surface of a second hollow profile element (Figs. 1 and 2, contact member 5 bears against leg segment 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the play remover of Moody to include a guide device (threaded housing and contact member with disc) such as taught by Meinunger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to guide the inner leg towards the outer leg, reducing the unwanted lateral movement between the telescoping legs, and to further allow the legs to bear against the disc during height adjustment when the play remover is loosened.
Moody in view of Meinunger is silent to the material of the guide element and the second hollow profile element.
Hodge discloses wherein a guide element surface (Figs. 3 and 4, surface of shoe 36) is made, at least in sections, of a soft material (Col. 2, line 42, “a plastic shoe”) whose hardness is lower than that of the second profile element (Col. 3, lines 41-42, “post holder body is machined from aluminum”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide contact surface of Moody in view of Meinunger to be made of plastic such as taught by Hodge with a reasonable expectation of success in order to put less wear on the telescoping legs as the inner leg is guided toward the outer leg for play removal, and to prevent scratching or wearing down the legs at the point of contact between the play remover and the inner portion of the leg. It would be obvious to use metal for the telescoping legs in order to provide a sturdy support system for the table top, which is a work table used for fabrication or welding in an industrial environment.
With respect to claim 24, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Meinunger) further discloses the guide device (threaded housing 4) is configured in such a way that the guide device completely covers the guide element (disk 6) on a side of the guide element (disk 6) opposite the guide element surface (Figs. 1 and 2, disk 6 and contact surface completely housed within threaded housing 4).
With respect to claim 27, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Meinunger) further discloses wherein the guide device (threaded housing 4) comprises a clamping device (thumbscrew 3 with threaded shaft 7) by which a clamping force can be applied, by which the guide element (disk 6) can be displaced in a direction of an outer surface of the second hollow profile element (Col. 3, lines 21-26, “the telescoping motion is fixed by rotation of the thumbscrew 3 to impose friction between the contact member 5 and the web of the leg segment 2 by means of pressure”).
With respect to claim 28, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Meinunger) further discloses wherein the clamping force of the clamping device (thumbscrew 3 with threaded shaft 7) can be preset by a screw connection (clamping force can be set by thumbscrew 3).
With respect to claim 29, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Moody) further discloses wherein the lifting column (Fig. 21, frame post 101 and leg 195) comprises a transmission unit (Fig. 21, hex driven nut 197 with hex nut cradle 198 and driveshaft 199) which connects the first hollow profile element and the second hollow profile element (frame post 101 and leg 195 are connected via driveshaft 199) and by which the first hollow profile element (frame post 101) and the second hollow profile element (leg 195) can be displaced relative to one another, wherein the transmission unit (197, 198, and 199) is enclosed by the first hollow profile element and/or the second hollow profile element (Fig. 21 shows 197, 198, 199 enclosed by 101 and 195).
With respect to claim 39, Moody discloses a heigh-adjustable work table, comprising: at least two lifting columns (Fig. 11 shows four height-adjustable legs made from frame posts 101 and legs 195), each of the at least two lifting columns (frame 101 with leg 195) comprising a first hollow profile element (Fig. 22 below frame post 101), a second hollow profile element (Fig. 21, leg 195), a guide device (Fig. 22, play remover 223) arranged on the first hollow profile element (101), and a transmission unit (Fig. 19, driven sprocket 191 with driven nut 197 and driveshaft 199) which connects the first hollow profile element (frame post 101) and the second hollow profile element (leg 195) and by which the first hollow profile element (101) and the second hollow profile element (195) can be displaced relative to one another, wherein the first hollow profile element (101) and the second hollow profile element (195) are arranged such that they can be telescoped relative to one another (101 and 195 are telescopically arranged for height adjustment of the table), wherein the first hollow profile element (101) encloses the second hollow profile element (195) at least in sections, wherein the second hollow profile element (195) is displaceable in a displacement axis parallel to a vertical axis of the first hollow profile element (Fig. 21 shows 195 is displaced along vertical axis relative to 101 via driveshaft 199, and leveling mount 211 via nut 212),and wherein the guide device (Fig. 22, play remover 223) that bears against an outer surface of the second hollow profile element (195); and a worktop (Fig. 10, table top 100) fixed in an end region of the first hollow profile elements (upper region of frame posts 101), wherein the transmission units (191 with 197 and 199) are connected to one another via a drive connection element (Figs. 13 and 18, chain 139) and can be driven by a drive unit (Abstract, “A welding table with elevation system, powered with cordless drill” as shown in Fig. 2).
Moody fails to disclose the guide device having a guide element arranged on the first hollow profile element which can be releasably connected to the guide device, and wherein a guide element surface of the guide element bears against an outer surface of the second hollow profile element.
Meinunger discloses a support device (Abstract, “adjustable support”) having a guide device (Fig. 1, threaded housing 4) arranged on the first hollow profile element (leg segment 1) having a guide element (disc 6) which can be releasably connected to the guide device (Fig. 1 shows disc 6 situated within threaded housing 4), and wherein a guide element surface (contact member 5) of the guide element (disc 6) bears against an outer surface of a second hollow profile element (Figs. 1 and 2, contact member 5 bears against leg segment 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the play remover of Moody with a support device such as taught by Meinunger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to guide the inner leg towards the outer leg, further reducing the unwanted lateral movement between the telescoping legs.
Moody in view of Meinunger is silent to the material of the guide element and the second hollow profile element.
Hodge discloses wherein a guide element surface (Figs. 3 and 4, surface of shoe 36) is made, at least in sections, of a soft material (Col. 2, line 42, “a plastic shoe”) whose hardness is lower than that of the second profile element (Col. 3, lines 41-42, “post holder body is machined from aluminum”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide contact surface of Moody in view of Meinunger to be made of plastic such as taught by Hodge with a reasonable expectation of success in order to put less wear on the telescoping legs as the inner leg is guided toward the outer leg for play removal, and to prevent scratching or wearing down the legs at the point of contact between the play remover and the inner portion of the leg. It would be obvious to use metal for the telescoping legs in order to provide a sturdy support system for the table top, which is a work table used for fabrication or welding in an industrial environment.
With respect to claim 40, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Moody) further discloses the drive connecting element (chain 139) is guidable within connecting hollow profile elements arranged between the lifting columns (Figs. 15 and 16, chain 139 arranged within “female profile” of chain guide 150, covered by dust shield 161 and underside of table top 100).
Claims 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody (U.S. Pub. No. 20190059572) and Meinunger (U.S. Pat. No. 3453011) in view of Hodge (U.S. Pat. No. 5039043) in further view of Beckstead (U.S. Pat. No. 5088421).
With respect to claim 30, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge discloses the limitation set forth above. Moody further discloses a transmission unit comprises a threaded shaft and a driven nut (Fig. 19, driven sprocket 191 drives the driveshaft 199, driven nut 197 is fixed to leg 195). Moody is silent to the transmission unit being configured as a ball screw assembly.
Beckstead discloses a transmission unit configured as a ball screw assembly (Fig. 3, ball screw unit 32) that comprises a threaded shaft (ball screw shaft 44) and a ball screw nut (nuts 32, 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the transmission unit of Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge with a ball screw assembly such as taught by Beckstead with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce friction between the nut and the threaded shaft. It is further noted that the substitution of one known element (transmission unit of Moody) for another (ball screw transmission unit of Beckstead) would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I.B).
With respect to claim 31, Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the transmission unit (Beckstead, ball screw unit 32) can be driven by means of a drive unit (Moody, Abstract, “A welding table with elevation system, powered with cordless drill” as shown in Fig. 2)
With respect to claim 32, Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the ball screw nut of the ball screw assembly (Beckstead, ball screw nut 32) is fixed to one end of the second hollow profile element (Moody, Fig. 19 shows leg 195 with nut fixed to its upper end) and an end region of the threaded shaft protrudes from the second hollow profile element (Moody, upper region of threaded shaft as modified by Beckstead protrudes upward from 195).
With respect to claim 33, Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the threaded shaft of the ball screw assembly (Beckstead, ball screw shaft 44) is driven by the drive unit (Moody, cordless drill in Fig. 2) via drive wheel (Moody, Figs. 18 and 19, driven sprocket 191) fixed to an end region of the threaded shaft (Moody, Fig. 19, upper end of threaded shaft as modified by Beckstead).
With respect to claim 34, Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein threads are removed from the end region of the threaded shaft (Beckstead, Fig. 4, upper end of threaded shaft 44 is threadless) and the end region is separated from the threads by an abutment element (Moody, Fig. 20, see modified Fig. 20 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 20
Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody (U.S. Pub. No. 20190059572), Meinunger (U.S. Pat. No. 3453011), and Hodge (U.S. Pat. No. 5039043) in view of Beckstead (U.S. Pat. No. 5088421) in further view of Burnett (U.S. Pat. No. 3963288).
With respect to claim 35, Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the threaded shaft comprises, at least at one end region of the threaded shaft, a stop element which, in an end position of the threaded shaft, is in contact with the ball screw nut and/or with a frame component.
Burnett discloses a threaded shaft (Fig. 5, elevation screw 290) comprises, at least at one end region of the threaded shaft (lower end of 290), a stop element (clock-type spring arrangement 225) which, in an end position of the threaded shaft (290) is in contact with the nut and/or with a frame component (Fig. 5 shows clock-type spring arrangement 225 contacts nut 296 when the table leg is fully elevated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the threaded shaft of Moody and Meinunger in view of Hodge in further view of Beckstead to include a stop element such as taught by Burnette with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the shaft from continuing to turn after the legs reach a maximum vertical height, further preventing unsteadiness or separation of the table legs.
With respect to claim 36, Moody, Meinunger, and Hodge in view of Beckstead in further view of Burnett discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Burnett) further discloses wherein the stop element (225) surrounds the threaded shaft at least in sections along an outer circumferential surface of the threaded shaft (Fig. 5 shows clock-type spring arrangement 225 surrounding the lower portion of the screw 290).
With respect to claim 37, Moody, Meinunger, and Hodge in view of Beckstead in further view of Burnett discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Burnett) further discloses the stop element consists of an elastically deformable material (Fig. 5, clock-type spring arrangement 225).
With respect to claim 38, Moody, Meinunger, and Hodge in view of Beckstead in further view of Burnett discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Burnett) further discloses wherein the stop element is configured as a spring element (Fig. 5, clock-type spring arrangement 225).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (U.S. Pat. No. 5791233) in view of Calago (U.S. Pat. No. 11041526).
With respect to claim 41, Knapp further discloses wherein during a movement of the second hollow profile element (inner section 51) relative to the first hollow profile element (outer section 82), the second hollow profile element (51) slides along the guide element surface (slide coating 82) at the outer surface, whereby the second hollow profile element (51) is guided within the first hollow profile element (52).
Knapp further discloses the guide element is capable of being removed or replaced (plate 80 is fixed into position by helical bodies 85 and is therefore capable of being removed for replacement by removing helical bodies 85, or installed by securing helical bodies 85) but fails to disclose wherein the guide element is interchangeable, so that guide elements with different thicknesses can be inserted into the guide device depending on outer dimensions of the first hollow profile element and the second hollow profile element to compensate for manufacturing tolerances.
Calago discloses wherein a guide element (Fig. 1, wear pad 10) is interchangeable (Col. 1, lines 48-50, “an adjustable wear pad with a wear indicator, which provides auditory and visual indication that the wear pad needs to be replaced”), so that guide elements (wear pad 10) with different thicknesses can be inserted into the guide device (push plate 12) depending on outer dimensions of the first hollow profile element (Fig. 5, stationary structure 100) and the second hollow profile element (moving structure 102) to compensate for manufacturing tolerances (a used/worn wear pad 10 loses thickness when worn down by friction, therefore it is replaced by a new wear pad with a greater thickness than that of the used/worn wear pad 10 which compensates for a dimensional difference between the stationary structure 100, the moving structure 102, and the old wear pad 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Knapp to include replacement plates such as taught by Calago with a reasonable expectation of success, in order easily provide an appropriate amount of contact between the plates and the inner column section, even after the plates have been worn down due to frequent sliding of the columns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections
Regarding claim 21, the claim has been amended to include the limitation of claim 25, overcoming the non-final rejection (6/20/25) of Moody (U.S. Pub. No. 20190059572) in view of Meinunger (U.S. Pat. No. 3453011). However, Moody in view of Meinunger in further view of Hodge (U.S. Pat. No. 5039043) still discloses the limitation of claim 21 as mapped in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that Hodge’s objective is incompatible with that of the present invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that Hodges objective of holding the vertical post in the vertical direction is incompatible with that of the present invention, stating that a material designed to maximize a clamping effect would not have been an obvious choice where the goal is to guide a hollow profile element and localize any wear in the replaceable guide element. In the instant case, the inner tubular legs of Moody in view of Meinunger are guided toward their respective outer leg in order to eliminate play and “prevent X and Y movement of the leg” (Moody, paragraph 0054) and “provide clamping pressure… to fix sliding and telescoping relationship” (Meinunger, Abstract).
While the combination is silent to the material of the guiding disc and legs, it would be obvious to use the plastic material of Hodge as a guiding material, as well as a metal material for the legs. A plastic guiding material would effectively allow the play remover of Moody in view of Meinunger to guide the inner tubular leg towards the outer leg to remove play. The plastic would further allow the legs to move relatively to each other in the instance that the play remover is loosened but the plastic guiding material is still in contact with the inner tubular leg, allowing the softer material (plastic) to absorb more wear than the hard material (metal). Additionally, plastic elements are inexpensive to produce making them ideal for an element that is meant to be replaced after it has been worn down.
Applicant argues that using a material designed to maximize clamping effect (plastic) would not have been an obvious choice where the goal is to “precisely guide a hollow profile while minimizing wear and localizing any wear in the replaceable guide element”. It is noted that while applicant argues the goal of the invention is to guide the legs during movement, the claims are product claims, not process claims, so there is no sliding or guiding method step claimed. The combination of Moody, Meinunger, and Hodge results in the claimed structure and is capable of 1) guiding the telescopic leg profiles by guiding the inner leg towards the outer leg for play removal, and further by loosening the guide element (play remover) so the surface minimally contacts the inner leg, adjusting the leg height, and tightening the guide element and 2) minimizing wear/localizing wear to the replaceable guide element which is plastic and therefore will absorb the wear caused by friction between the guide device and the metal legs.
Regarding claim 22, applicant argues that the guide element of Moody, “which works for rectangular profiles”, is incompatible with Meinunger’s support device which includes V-shaped profiles. The examiner notes that the rejection of claim 21 in the non-final rejection (6/20/2025) states “it would have been obvious… to replace the play remover of Moody with a support device such as taught by Meinunger” which should have stated “it would have been obvious… to modify the play remover of Moody to include a guide device such as taught by Meinunger,” the guide device disclosed in the rejection to include the threaded housing 4, contact member 5, and disc 6. This combination is consistent with the subsequent claim rejections of the non-final rejection. The wording has been updated in the rejection above to properly describe the combination of Moody’s play remover with Meinunger’s threaded housing, contact member, and disc.
It is further noted that Moody has been modified to include the threaded housing, contact member, and disc of Meinunger onto the play remover of Moody. The leg shape of Moody has not been modified. Both the play remover of Moody and the guide device of Meinunger (threaded housing, contact surface, and disc) bear against a side of an inner portion of a telescopic leg, and are therefore both capable of removing unwanted lateral movement between the inner and outer leg portions. The addition of Meinunger’s guide device (threaded housing, contact surface, and disc) does not change the manner in which the play removed of Moody bears against the inner leg, it merely adds a padded surface between the play remover and the inner leg as well as a housing for the play remover.
Claim 22 has been amended to include the additional limitation “wherein the guide element is one of a plurality of guide elements arranged along a circumference of the second hollow profile element” overcoming the non-final (6/20/2025) rejection of Moody in view of Meinunger, however a new ground of rejection has been made as mapped in the rejection above.
Regarding claims 23 and 26, the claims have been amended to overcome the non-final rejection (6/20/2025) of Moody in view of Meinunger. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 23 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, 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.
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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637