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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 9, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear how the second hinge member is shaped to inhibit access to the locking mechanism. This feature is not disclosed in the specification and not understood where located in the figures, as originally filed.
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 9 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. For claim 9, it is unclear how the brace can be coupled to and integrally formed with one of the hinge members.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 5, 6, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engert (2,275,353). Engert teaches a hinge assembly (13; Fig. 3) comprising: a first hinge member (12) connectable to a leg (3-6) of a table (2); and a second hinge member (including 14,19) hingedly coupled to the first hinge member (at 15-17), wherein the second hinge member includes an outer flange (a; see annotated figure below) connectable to an underside of a tabletop (at b), wherein the second hinge member includes an angled member (c ) coupled to the outer flange thereof, and wherein a brace which is generally triangular in outer side profile is formed by said angled member (two sides of triangle) and a portion of the tabletop (third side) coupled thereto. Wherein the second hinge member in outer shape is wedge-shaped at least in part. Wherein the second hinge member includes a first portion (14) hingedly coupled to the first hinge member, a second portion (19,c, side close to 14) coupled and extending outwards at an angle relative to the first portion thereof, and a third portion (19,c, side close to a) spaced apart from and coupled to the first portion thereof via the second portion thereof, wherein the third portion of the second hinge member couples to and extends outwards at an acute angle relative to the second portion of the second hinge member (Fig. 3), and wherein the third portion of the second hinge member is shaped to inhibit movement of the second portion of the second hinge member relative to the first portion of the second hinge member. Wherein the second hinge member includes a flange (a) coupled to a distal end of the third portion thereof, with the first portion and the flange of the second hinge member substantially extending in parallel with each other and being configured to selectively couple connectable to and extendable along the table (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7, 9, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins (510082). Mullins teaches a hinge assembly (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a first hinge member (c); a second hinge member (Fig. 4) hingedly coupled to the first hinge member (at e); and a locking mechanism (D,C) which selectively couples together the hinge members, wherein the locking mechanism includes a female member (C) which couples to the first hinge member, wherein the locking mechanism includes a male member (D) which pivotally couples to the second hinge member and selectively engages with the female member (Fig. 2), with movement of the first hinge member relative to the second hinge member being inhibited thereby. Wherein the second hinge member comprises spaced-apart end portions (a2) which extend parallel with each other and an angled portion (e’) coupled to and extending between said end portions. The assembly including a brace (a3) coupled to and integrally formed with one of the hinge members. Wherein the male member includes an arcuate-shaped latch shaped to selectively engage with the female member, with the latch having a center of curvature that is coaxial with an axis of rotation of the male member.
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.
Claims 26, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engert (2,275,353) in view of Triplette (4,063,330). As stated above Engert teaches a hinge assembly for use between a table and leg comprising: a first hinge member (12); a second hinge member (including 14,19) hingedly coupled to the first hinge member (at 15-17), wherein the second hinge member includes a proximal end portion (14 near 12), a distal end portion (a) spaced-apart from the proximal end portion thereof, and an angled portion (c) which couples and extends outwards from said end portions at obtuse angles relative to said end portions. For claims 26 and 27, Engert fails to teach a locking mechanism which selectively couples together the hinge members. Triplette teaches a locking mechanism (22,32) which selectively couples together hinge members (13,14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge of Engert by adding a locking mechanism, such as is taught by Triplette, therein, to help hold the members together when the table and leg are in the closed position.
For claim 30, when the hinge is in the closed/folded position, the second hinge member is shaped to inhibit access to the locking mechanism, as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 33-40 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 with respect to the claims 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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.
Wilkens
January 12, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637