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 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) 32-33, 42-44 & 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DesRoches et al. (US patent application publication 2014/0208985) (hereinafter DesRoches).
Regarding claim 32, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk, comprising: a tabletop (250) comprising a work surface (252) configured to automatically move with horizontal planar movement with respect to a user standing at the desk to use the work surface ([0072]), a cueing system (see annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide tactile cues to the standing user for position changes during movement of the work surface with respect to the user ([0076] teaches the user may follow the movement of the tabletop assembly), wherein the cueing system comprises laterally spaced portions (see annotated Fig. 1) extending posteriorly with respect to the user and along opposite left and right sides of the user when the user stands between said laterally spaced portions in a position to use the work surface such that the laterally spaced portions mediolaterally nudge the standing user to cause the user to remain centered in front of the tabletop ([0076]), wherein the laterally spaced portions extend away from the tabletop such that the user is at least partially surrounded by the desk when standing at the desk to use the work surface, with an edge of the tabletop (see annotated Fig. 1) in front of the user and the laterally spaced portions on opposite left and right sides of the user such that the laterally spaced portion on the left side of the user nudges the user toward the right when the tabletop moves to the right, the laterally spaced portion on the right side of the user nudges the user toward the left when the tabletop moves to the left, and the edge of the tabletop nudges the user posteriorly when the table top moves toward the user ([0076]).
Regarding claim 33, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the cueing system comprises a cut-out in the tabletop (see annotated Fig. 1) and a physical cueing device (the edges/perimeter of cut-out) including said laterally spaced portions wherein the cut-out has a width (see annotated Fig. 1) and the laterally spaced portions are laterally spaced by an amount equal to said width such that an edge of the cut-out and edges of the laterally spaced portions oppose each other across said width define a physical boundary confining the standing user at the lateral center of the tabletop (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 42, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the work surface is configured to move with a range of movement that adjusts as a function of the size of the user standing at the desk ([0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 43, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the cueing system comprises an arcuate cut-out in the tabletop (Fig. 1) a depth greater than a radius of an arc defining an edge of the arcuate cut-out (see annotated Fig. 1, the cueing system includes portions of the tabletop that include a depth greater than the radius).
Regarding claim 44, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is a function of a length of a leg of the user ([0109] & [0130-0135] teach anthropometric measurements including physical information which is used to determine a range of motion of the tabletop)
Regarding claim 48, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk further comprising: a base (104); a frame (250) that movably couples the tabletop to the base; and at least one actuator (106, 254) configured to provide the horizontal planar movement.
Regarding claim 49, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the at least one actuator includes a first actuator (254) configured to move the tabletop with respect to the frame along a first direction ([0100]) and a second actuator (106) configured to move the frame with respect to the base along a different second direction (200), the frame being stationary with respect to the tabletop in the second direction.
Regarding claim 50, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk further comprising a sensor configured to differentiate the user from a different user ([0139]), the desk being further configured to adjust the range of movement based on information from the sensor ([0149]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1051
1255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DesRoches.
Regarding claim 45, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is based on the user’s profile which includes anthropometric measures ([0109 & [0130]). DesRoches does not disclose a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is between 25% and 35% of said length or between 55% and 65% of said length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify DesRoches wherein the range of movement is between 25% and 35% of said length or between 55% and 65% of said length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 46, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is based on the user’s profile which includes anthropometric measures ([0109 & [0130]). DesRoches does not disclose a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is not between 40% and 50% of said length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify DesRoches wherein the range of movement is not between 40% and 50% of said length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 47, DesRoches discloses a dynamic standing desk wherein the work surface moves at a rate ([0149]). DesRoches does not disclose a dynamic standing desk wherein the work surface moves at a rate between 2 millimeters per second and 10 millimeters per second with respect to the ground. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify DesRoches wherein the planar motion is at a rate between 2 millimeters per second and 10 millimeters per second with respect to the ground, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Claim(s) 37, 39 & 52-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (2006/0124036) in view of DesRoches.
Regarding claim 37, Xu discloses a dynamic standing desk, comprising: a tabletop (30) that includes a work surface (top of 30) configured to automatically move parallel with the ground with only bidirectional linear motion ([0027 & 0030]), wherein the motion is mediolateral with respect to a user standing at the desk and facing the work surface to use the work surface (Fig. 1).
Xu does not disclose a cueing system configured to provide tactile cues to the standing user for position changes during movement of the work surface with respect to the user, wherein the cueing system comprises laterally spaced portions extending posteriorly with respect to the user and along opposite left and right sides of the user when the user stands between said laterally spaced portions in a position to use the work surface such that the laterally spaced portions mediolaterally nudge the standing user to cause the user to remain centered in front of the tabletop, wherein the laterally spaced portions extend away from the tabletop such that the user is at least partially surrounded by the desk when standing at the desk to use the work surface, with an edge of the tabletop in front of the user and the laterally spaced portions on opposite left and right sides of the user such that the laterally spaced portion on the left side of the user nudges the user toward the right when the tabletop moves to the right and the laterally spaced portion on the right side of the user nudges the user toward the left when the tabletop moves to the left.
DesRoches teaches a cueing system (see annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide tactile cues to the standing user for position changes during movement of the work surface with respect to the user ([0076] teaches the user may follow the movement of the tabletop assembly), wherein the cueing system comprises laterally spaced portions (see annotated Fig. 1) extending posteriorly with respect to the user and along opposite left and right sides of the user when the user stands between said laterally spaced portions in a position to use the work surface such that the laterally spaced portions mediolaterally nudge the standing user to cause the user to remain centered in front of the tabletop ([0076]), wherein the laterally spaced portions extend away from the tabletop such that the user is at least partially surrounded by the desk when standing at the desk to use the work surface, with an edge of the tabletop (see annotated Fig. 1) in front of the user and the laterally spaced portions on opposite left and right sides of the user such that the laterally spaced portion on the left side of the user nudges the user toward the right when the tabletop moves to the right and the laterally spaced portion on the right side of the user nudges the user toward the left when the tabletop moves to the left ([0076]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Xu to include the cueing system of DesRoches because this arrangement would have allowed a user to follow movement of the tabletop assembly as taught by DesRoches in [0076]).
Regarding claim 39, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk wherein the work surface moves at a rate ([0027]) with respect to the ground. Xu, as modified, does not teach a dynamic standing desk wherein the rate is between 2 millimeters per second and 10 millimeters per second. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Xu, as previously modified, wherein the planar motion is at a rate between 2 millimeters per second and 10 millimeters per second, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 52, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk wherein the cueing system comprises an arcuate cut-out in the tabletop (Fig. 1) and a depth greater than a radius of an arc defining an edge of the arcuate cut-out (see annotated Fig. 1, the cueing system includes portions of the tabletop that include a depth greater than the radius).
Regarding claim 53, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk wherein the work surface is configured to move with a range of movement that adjusts as a function of the size of the user standing at the desk ( DesRoches: [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 54, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is based on the user’s profile which includes anthropometric measures (DesRoches: [0109 & [0130]). Xu, as modified, does not teach a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is between 25% and 35% of said length or between 55% and 65% of said length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Xu, as previously modified, wherein the range of movement is between 25% and 35% of said length or between 55% and 65% of said length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 55, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is based on the user’s profile which includes anthropometric measures (DesRoches: [0109 & [0130]). Xu, as modified, does not disclose a dynamic standing desk wherein the range of movement is not between 40% and 50% of said length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Xu, as previously modified, wherein the range of movement is not between 40% and 50% of said length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 56, Xu, as modified, teaches a dynamic standing desk further comprising a sensor configured to differentiate the user from a different user (DesRoches: [0139]), the desk being further configured to adjust the range of movement based on information from the sensor (DesRoches: [0149]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 & 51 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the allowability of claim 35 was related to the specific limitations in which the “laterally spaced portions” which are “extensions” function is incorrect. The allowability of claim 35 was drawn from the entire claim as DesRoches teaches “laterally spaced portions”.
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 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
Prosecution Insights