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
1. The drawings were received on 04/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-20 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. With respect to claim 1, the limitation “said rear element” in line 9 should be – the rear wall --. Same with claim 11. It’s unclear if “a first sidewall element” and “a first end cap” in claim 1, line 10, are part of the “a plurality of sidewall elements” and “at least one end cap” or different elements. Same with claim 11. With respect to claim 11, lines 6 and 10, the limitation “said sidewall” and “said base” lack antecedent basis. With respect to claim 11, lines 14, 19-20, “said rear element” lacks antecedent basis. claims 3-9, 13-20 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173526 A1 (Delgadillo) in further view of US Patent 8,832,917 B1 (Elliott).
With respect to claim 1, Delgadillo shows a modular preparation table comprising: a base element (815, FIg.14); a plurality of sidewall elements (830, middle 840&845, FIg.14) selectively connected to said base element; at least one end cap (835) selectively connected to said base element; a rear wall (800/805, FIg.14); a top element (810); and a plurality of front elements (847, 857, Fig.14, Fig.13), wherein said base element (815), said top element (810), said rear element (800), said plurality of front elements (847, Fig.14, front panel 857/front frame of drawers, FIg.13), a first sidewall element (830), and a first end cap (835) form a first internal cavity when said sidewall element is in a connected configuration (Fig.14), wherein a second sidewall element (middle 840&845, FIg.14) forms a second internal cavity in association with said first sidewall element (830), said base element (815), said top element (810), said rear element (800), and said plurality of front elements (847,857) when said second sidewall element (middle 840&845) is in connected configuration (FIg.14).
With respect to claim 1, Delgadillo doesn’t show each sidewall element and the end cap selectively connected to the base with tracks. Elliott shows sidewall elements (152, 154, Fig.26) and the end cap (104) selectively connected to the base (178) with tracks (178a, Fig.26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to selectively connect the sidewall elements and end cap to the base with tracks, such as taught by Elliott, in order to easily and quickly attach and disassemble the sidewall elements and end cap to the base.
With respect to claim 3, the combination (Delgadillo) shows further including a cooling system (200, FIg.14).
With respect to claim 4, the combination (Delgadillo) shows wherein said cooling system (100 and 200, FIg.4) further includes a ducting (233, 141, FIg.8/215, FIg.3), said ducting configured selectively direct airflow into said first internal cavity.
With respect to claim 5, modified Delgadillo teaches in a different embodiment (Fig.21) wherein said base element (935) further includes a hardware platform (931/940). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a hardware platform on the base element in FIg.14, such as shown in FIg.21 of Delgadillo, in order to fixedly support casters thereon in order to be able to easily move the modular table elsewhere.
With respect to claim 6, the combination (Delgadillo) shows further including a spanner (840, Fig.14).
With respect to claim 7, the combination (Delgadillo) shows wherein said top element (810) further includes a working surface (FIg.14).
With respect to claim 8, modified Delgadillo shows a different embodiment in FIg.8 that teaches wherein said top element (510) further includes a cooling compartment (110, FIg.8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a cooling element on the top element of FIg.14 of modified Delgadillo, such that it has a cooling compartment as shown in FIg.8, in order to be able to cool food items on the top of the preparation table and easily access the food when needed.
With respect to claim 9, the combination (Delgadillo) shows wherein said sidewalls (830) and end caps (835) further include a shelf bracket (840, 845, FIg.14).
5. Claims 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173526 A1 (Delgadillo) in further in view of US 2014/0286701 (Sauer).
With respect to claim 11, Delgadillo shows a modular preparation table comprising: a rectangular base element (815, FIg.15); at least one sidewall element (830); at least one end cap (835) including a bottom surface; a rear wall (800, FIg.14); a top element (810); and a plurality of front elements (847, drawer fronts 857, FIg.13, Fig.14), wherein said base element (815), said top element (810), said rear element (800), said plurality of front elements (847, drawer fronts 857), a first sidewall element (830), and a first end cap (835) form a first internal cavity when said sidewall element is in a connected configuration (Fig.14); wherein a second sidewall element (middle 845,FIg.14) forms a second internal cavity in association with said first sidewall element (830), said base element (815), said top element (810), said rear element (800), and said plurality of front elements (847, 857), when said second sidewall element (middle 845) is in connected configuration (FIg.14).
With respect to claim 11, Delgadillo does not teach a wall track and at least one end cap track, the sidewall element having a sidewall track and the end cap having a bottom surface associated with a bottom surface track. Sauer teaches a base element (12, FIg.1A) comprising at least one wall track (18) and at least one end cap track (16), sidewall element (20) including a sidewall track (26, FIg.1B), the sidewall track (26) configured to be selectively slide into one of the at least one wall tracks (18) thereby connecting the sidewall (20) to the base (12); the one end cap (20’, FIg.4A) including a bottom surface associated with a bottom surface track (Fig.4B, same track 26 as sidewall 20), the bottom surface track being configured to selectively slide into one of the at least one end cap tracks (16) thereby connecting said end cap (20’) to said base (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wall track and an end cap track to the base element and a sidewall track to the sidewall element and bottom surface track to the end cap of Delgadillo, such as shown by Sauer, in order to easily connect the sidewall element and the end cap to the base element and to easily mount and disengage them when needed.
With respect to claim 13, the combination (Delgadillo) shows further including a cooling system (200, FIg.14).
With respect to claim 14, the combination (Delgadillo) wherein said cooling system (100 and 200, FIg.4) further includes a ducting (233, 141, FIg.8/215, FIg.3), said ducting configured selectively direct airflow into said first internal cavity.
With respect to claim 15, the combination (Delgadillo) teaches in a different embodiment (Fig.21) wherein said base element (935) further includes a hardware platform (931/940). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a hardware platform on the base element in FIg.14, such as shown in FIg.21 of Delgadillo, in order to fixedly support casters thereon in order to be able to easily move the modular table elsewhere.
With respect to claim 16, the combination (Delgadillo) teaches further including a spanner (840 attached to 830).
With respect to claim 17, the combination (Delgadillo) teaches wherein said top element (810) further includes a working surface (FIg.14).
With respect to claim 18, the combination (Delgadillo) shows a different embodiment in FIg.8 that teaches wherein said top element (510) further includes a cooling compartment (110, FIg.8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a cooling element on the top element of FIg.14 of modified Delgadillo, such that it has a cooling compartment as shown in FIg.8, in order to be able to cool food items on the top of the preparation table and easily access the food when needed.
With respect to claim 19, the combination (Delgadillo) teaches wherein each side wall element (830 and middle drawer track, FIg.14) and end cap (835) further includes a shelf bracket (845).
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0173526 A1 (Delgadillo) in view of US 2014/0286701 (Sauer) in further view of US Patent 5,733,022 (Whetstone).
With respect to claim 20, Delgadillo in view of Sauer doesn’t show one of the at least one wall tracks is T track configuration. Whetstone shows wherein a wall track (27, Fig.2) is in a T track configuration (28 and 29, Fig.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the wall track of modified Delgadillo, T track configuration, such as taught by Whetstone, in order to be able to efficiently support the bottom of the sidewall elements and end cap by having flanges on them that sit on the horizontal part of the T-shaped track.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, applicant argued that Elliot does not disclose securing via sliding elements on a track, but rather mating an edge with a groove. The examiner takes the position that amended claim 1 does not recite “sliding elements on a track” but merely recites that each sidewall element and end cap is selectively slidably connected to the base with tracks. The grooves (178a) in Elliot are considered tracks. A track is merely a path and the groove 178a made in the base is considered a track. Each sidewall element (152, 154, Fig.26) and end cap (104) in Elliot is slidably moved downwards to connect the lower edge 158 of the sidewall elements 152, 154 and lower edge 108 of the end cap 104 to the respective groove (178a, Fig.26) in the base. Thus claim 1 fails to provide adequate structural limitation to differentiate the claimed invention from that of the prior art.
With respect to claim 11, applicant argued that the elements in Sauer do not slide into place and that the elements are joined by being inserted into and locked in place with a locking element. The examiner notes that claim 11 merely recites “the sidewall track being configured to selectively slide into one of the at least one wall tracks” there is no recitation of the elements being locked in place without the use of a locking element in claim 11.
Sauer teaches a base element (12, FIg.1A) comprising at least one wall track (18) and at least one end cap track (16), sidewall element (20) including a sidewall track (26, FIg.1B), the sidewall track (26) configured to be selectively slide into one of the at least one wall tracks (18) thereby connecting the sidewall (20) to the base (12). Hence the tongue 26 (sidewall track) is slid downwards to be received in the groove 18 (wall track) of wall 12 and shifted (slid) to the right in order to bring the dovetail configured side of the tongue into facial contact with the similarly configured dovetail side of the groove 18 (paragraph 0054) thus Sauer does teach “the sidewall track being configured to selectively slide into one of the at least one wall tracks”. Same with the bottom surface track in the end cap track. There is no limitation in the claim regarding how the sidewall track/bottom surface track is locked in place in the wall track/end cap track. Thus the instant claim fails to provide adequate structural limitation to differentiate the claimed invention from that of the prior art.
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 HIWOT E TEFERA whose telephone number is (571)270-3320. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6PM.
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 5712703742. 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.
/HIWOT E TEFERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights