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 § 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.
Claims 10-13 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein, when in use with the surgical chair, a second clearance is created between the first clearance and within the spacing between the table top and above the surgical chair”. The surgical chair, as claimed, is not required as part of the invention; rather, the table must be capable of use with a surgical chair. The second clearance is based on the surgical chair, which is not required, rendering the claim indefinite. There is no specific clearance, dimension, or universal height claimed, making it unclear what a clearance between the tabletop and surgical chair must be. For instance, when the table is in use with surgical chairs of various heights or in use with other types of chairs or furniture.
Claim 10 further recites “…and wherein upon moving the table using the first pair of rolling coasters of the first support base and the second pair of rolling coasters of the second support base over the surgical chair, the second clearance provides the necessary space for a patient laying on the surgical chair.” There is no specific clearance, dimension, or universal height of a patient or surgical chair claimed, making it unclear what constitutes a clearance as having the necessary space for a patient laying on the surgical chair. For instance, the necessary space would be different when in use with patients of different sizes, such as an infant-sized patient versus an adult-sized patient.
Claims 11-13 are rejected for depending from claim 10.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agee (U.S. Pat. No. 8256359) and Papic (U.S. Pat. No. 9717327) in view of Nourse (U.S. Pat. No. 11357323) in further view of Chen (U.S. Pub. No. 20170188698).
With respect to claim 10, Agee discloses a table for use with a surgical chair, comprising: a table top (Fig. 1, expansive top 11) having a top side (work surface 12) and a bottom side (underside of expansive top 11) and defining opposed exterior sides (left and right side faces of expansive top 11) separated by a length and a width between a front side (front side of 11) and a back side (back side of 11); a first telescoping leg (leg 13) situated adjacent to one of the opposed exterior sides of the bottom side of the table top (leg 13 adjacent to left edge of 11 and attached to the underside of 11 as shown in Fig. 1); a second telescoping leg (leg 14) situated adjacent to the other of the opposed exterior sides of the bottom side of the table top (leg 14 adjacent to right edge of 11 and attached to the underside of 11 as shown in Fig. 1); a first clearance provided between the first telescoping leg and the second telescoping leg (empty space between legs 13 and 14); a spacing created below the entirety of the bottom side of the table top (empty space beneath the underside of 11) and between the first telescoping leg (13) and the second telescoping leg (14); a first support base (foot 15) supporting the first telescoping leg (leg 13) and providing a first pair of rolling coasters (Col. 4, lines 24-25, “foot 15 or 16 can provide one or more casters 49 or fixed supports 50, or one of each”); a second support base (foot 16) supporting the second telescoping leg (leg 14) and providing a second pair of rolling coasters (Col. 4, lines 24-25, “foot 15 or 16 can provide one or more casters 49 or fixed supports 50, or one of each”); means for raising or lowering (Fig. 2, gear boxes 21 and 22 with rod 26) each of the first telescoping leg (13) and the second telescoping leg (14); a crank (crank 17) in mechanical communication with the means for raising or lowering each of the first telescoping leg and the second telescoping leg (Fig. 7, crank 17 controls the rotation of gear cluster 31 within each gear box 21 and 22 to raise and lower upper sections 24 and 25 of legs 13 and 14); wherein, upon using the crank (crank 17) to control the means for raising or lowering each of the first telescoping leg and the second telescoping leg (gear boxes 21, 22 with rod 26), the first telescoping leg (leg 13) and the second telescoping leg (leg 14) raise or lower the table top (11) to increase or decrease the spacing between the table and a supporting surface (empty space beneath the underside of 11).
Agee fails to discloses an elongated rail situated in a vertical orientation from the table top and extending across the entire length of the table between the opposed exterior edges.
Papic discloses an elongated rail (Fig. 4, slatwall structure 230) situated in a vertical orientation from the table top (Figs. 1 and 2, slatwall 230 extends vertically from the top surface of work surface 220) and extending across the entire length of the table between the opposed exterior edges (Fig. 1 shows slatwall structure 230 extends across work surface 220 from the left side rounded edge to the right side rounded edge of the work surface 220).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table of Agee to include a slatwall such as taught by Papic with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily and accessibly support objects including a display screen/monitor and other tools or office equipment.
Agee in view of Papic fails to disclose a first hole in the table top situated between the rail and the back side of the table top and adjacent to one of the opposed exterior sides; a second hole in the table top situated between the rail and the back side of the table top and adjacent to the other of the opposed exterior sides.
Nourse discloses a first hole (Fig. 1, left cable port 50) in the table top (work platform 20) situated at the back side of the table top (20) and adjacent to one of the opposed exterior sides (left lateral side edge 68); a second hole (right cable port 50) in the table top (work platform 20) situated at the back side of the table top (20) and adjacent to the other of the opposed exterior sides (right lateral side edge 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table of Agee in view of Papic to include cable ports such as taught by Nourse with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily organize and route device cables situated on top of the table to the bottom of the table.
Agee in view of Papic in further view of Nourse fails to disclose the crank extending direction outwardly from one of the opposed exterior sides of the table top.
Chen discloses a crank (Fig. 1, crank 40) extending direction outwardly from one of the opposed exterior sides of the table top (crank 40 extends outwardly from a right lateral side of table top 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 table of Agee in view of Papic in further view of Nourse by rearranging the crank to the right side of the table with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user seated on either the front or back side of the table to have access to the crank, and to further be able to easily raise or lower the height of the table as needed. It is further noted that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen further disclose wherein, when in use with a surgical chair (Agee discloses a user having “knee space in the area under the table work surface” (Abstract) while Nourse explicitly discloses the use of a table with “a conventional office chair” (Col. 2, lines 60-62). Note that the surgical chair is not positively claimed, therefore the table must only be capable of use with a surgical chair), a second clearance (Abstract, “knee space”) may be created between the first clearance (Agee, empty space between legs 13 and 14) and within the spacing between the table top and above a chair (Abstract, “A height adjustable table is disclosed wherein all horizontal supports that span between legs have been eliminated to increase storage space and knee space in the area under the table work surface.”); and wherein upon moving the table using the first pair of rolling coasters of the first support base (Agee, first pair of casters 49 of foot 15) and the second pair of rolling coasters of the second support base (Agee, second pair of casters 49 of foot 16) over a chair, the second clearance (Agee, “knee space”) is capable of providing the necessary space for a patient laying on the surgical chair (Agee, “knee space” would provide sufficient space between the knees of a user seated in a chair, and the underside of expansive top 11).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agee (U.S. Pat. No. 8256359), Papic (U.S. Pat. No. 9717327), and Nourse (U.S. Pat. No. 11357323) in view of Chen (U.S. Pub. No. 20170188698) in further view of Heath (U.S. Pat. No. 9961996).
With respect to claim 11, Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein, in a fully raised position, the table top has a height of forty-nine inches.
Heath discloses a table top (Fig. 1, tabletop 70) wherein, in a fully raised position (Fig. 7, higher position P4), the table top has a height of forty-nine inches (Col. 3, lines 25-25, “the height of the table top can be adjusted between about 34 inches and about 50 inches”. Further, if the fully raised height as shown in Fig. 7 is 50 inches, the thickness of the table top 70 is reasonably between 1 and 1.5 inches, therefore some height of the table top is forty-nine inches in the fully raised position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fully raised table height of Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen to a higher position such as taught by Heath, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to comfortably accommodate the height of the user when standing. It is further noted that where the only difference between the prior art (higher table position of Agee in view of Papic, Nourse, Chen, and Saab) and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (raised position of 49 inches) and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (A).
With respect to claim 12, Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein, in fully lowered position, the table top has a height of thirty-three inches.
Heath discloses a table top (Fig. 1, tabletop 70) wherein, in fully lowered position (Fig. 8, lower position P3), the table top has a height of thirty-three inches (Col. 3, lines 25-25, “the height of the table top can be adjusted between about 34 inches and about 50 inches”. Further, if the fully lowered height as shown in Fig. 8 is thirty-four inches, the thickness of the table top 70 is reasonably between 1 and 1.5 inches, therefore some height of the table top is thirty-three inches in the fully lowered position.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fully lowered table height of Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen to a lower position such as taught by Heath, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to comfortably accommodate the height of the user when seated. It is further noted that where the only difference between the prior art (lower table position of Agee in view of Papic, Nourse, Chen, and Saab) and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (lowered position of 33 inches) and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agee (U.S. Pat. No. 8256359), Papic (U.S. Pat. No. 9717327), and Nourse (U.S. Pat. No. 11357323) in view of Chen (U.S. Pub. No. 20170188698) in further view of Saab (U.S. Pub. No. 20150245707).
With respect to claim 13, Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the first clearance between the first telescoping leg and the second telescoping leg is thirty-six and one-half inches.
Saab discloses wherein the first clearance between the first telescoping leg (Fig. 1a, leg 32) and the second telescoping leg (leg 24) is thirty-six and one-half inches (Paragraph 0037, “The spacing of legs 32, 34 may be sufficient to accommodate as wheelchair… the spacing between legs 32, 34 may be at least 32 inches, and may be about 36 inches, or greater than 36 inches”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacing between the legs of Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a distance of about 36 inches (or greater than 36 inches) such as taught by Saab in order to comfortable accommodate a user when seated in chairs of greater widths such as a wheel chair. It is further noted that where the only difference between the prior art (leg spacing of Agee in view of Papic, Nourse, Chen, and Saab) and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (leg spacing of 36.5 inches) and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (A).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Regarding independent claim 13, Applicant argues that Agee does not disclose a first support base providing a first pair of rolling coasters or a second support base providing a second pair of rolling coasters. However, in Col. 4, lines 24-25 Agee discloses “Foot 15 or 16 can provide one or more casters 49 or fixed supports 50, or one of each.” Therefore, Agee teaches the limitation of the first support base (foot 15) having a pair of rolling coasters (casters 49), and the second support base (foot 16) having a pair of rolling coasters (casters 49).
Applicant further argues that Agee does not disclose “wherein, when in use with the surgical chair, a second clearance is created between the first clearance and within the spacing between the table top and above the surgical chair”. The examiner notes that a surgical chair, nor any features defining a surgical chair, is not positively claimed as part of the invention (see 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the table must only be capable of creating a second clearance between the first clearance and within the spacing between the table top and above a chair. Agee discloses “A height adjustable table is disclosed wherein all horizontal supports that span between legs have been eliminated to increase storage space and knee space in the area under the table work surface,” (Abstract). Therefore, the table is disclosed to provide a second clearance (knee space) for a user seated in a chair at the table.
Applicant further argues that Agee does not disclose “wherein, upon moving the table… over the surgical chair, the second clearance provides the necessary space for a patient laying on the surgical chair”. The examiner notes that there is no specific clearance, dimension, or universal height of a patient or surgical chair claimed as part of the invention (see 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the table must only be capable of creating a second clearance that is capable of providing space for a user occupying a chair. Agee discloses “A height adjustable table is disclosed wherein all horizontal supports that span between legs have been eliminated to increase storage space and knee space in the area under the table work surface,” (Abstract). Therefore, the table is disclosed to provide a second clearance (knee space) that provides enough space to accommodate a user occupying a chair at the table.
Applicant has further amended the claim to include new limitations including an elongated rail situated in a vertical direction from the table top, a first hole, a second hole, and the crank extending in a direction outwardly from one of the opposed exterior sides of the table. Agee alone does not disclose the above new limitations, therefore the 102 rejection of the non-final rejection (5/23/2025) is withdrawn.
However, Papic discloses an elongated rail (slatwall structure) as claimed. It would be obvious to include a slatwall structure onto the table top in order to easily and accessibly support objects including a display screen/monitor and other tools or office equipment.
Nourse discloses a first hole and a second hole (left and right cable ports 50) as claimed. It would have been obvious to include left and right cable ports on the table top in order to easily organize and route device cables to the bottom of the table.
Chen discloses the crank (crank 40) extending in a direction outwardly from one of the opposed exterior sides of the table. It would have been obvious to arrange the crank on the left or right side of the table in order to allow a user seated on either the front or back side of the table to have access to the crank, and to further be able to easily raise or lower the height of the table as needed.
Therefore claim 10 is rejected for being obvious over Agee and Papic in view of Nourse in further view of Chen as mapped in the 103 rejection above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that the combination of Agee in view of Heath teaches away from Applicant’s invention because the post assembly 40 of Heath, which provides the vertical support of the table top, must be fastened to an underside of the table top within the center of the table top. The examiner notes that the rejection of claim 11 over Agee in view of Heath did NOT involve replacing the telescopic legs of Agee with a central vertical support of Heath, but merely involved Agee adopting a table top height dimension (between 34 and 50 inches) as taught by Heath. It would be obvious to modify the height-adjustable table top of Agee to fall within a range of 34-50 inches, as taught by Heath, in order to provide a sitting height and a standing height that comfortably accommodates seated users, standing users, or users who desire specific height that fall within the seated and standing height range.
Applicant further argues that Agee in view of Heath teaches away from Applicant’s invention for disclosing table top height that can be adjusted between about 34 inches and 50 inches, arguing that the fully lowered position and the fully raised position are higher than the applicant’s invention which has a fully lowered position of 33 inches and a fully raised position of 49 inches. The examiner notes that if the fully raised table top height of Heath as shown in Fig. 7 is 50 inches and the fully lowered height as shown in Fig. 8 is 34 inches, the thickness of the table top 70 is reasonably between 1 and 1.5 inches, therefore some height of the table top is forty-nine inches in the fully raised position.
The examiner further notes that Applicant fails to show any evidence of criticality of dimensions as claimed in amended claims 11-13. Page 7, lines 5-9, disclose the dimensions being approximately 49 inches in the fully raised position, approximately 33 inches in the fully lowered position, and having a clearance of approximately 36.5 inches between first and second table legs. Page 7, lines 9-12 state that these specific dimensions accomplish “proper weight and height distributions balance” however the Applicant fails to show that a table of these dimensions would accomplish a height and weight distribution that could not be accomplished by similar table height dimensions (Heath, height range of 34-50 inches) or clearance dimensions (Saab, clearance of 36 inches, or more than 36 inches).
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