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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1 – 17) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18 - 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Invention II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
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 1 – 17 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 1 recites the limitation “said first and second support members” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first and second supports.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a first lateral pivot axis mounted to said first end ...” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that “axis” is commonly known in the art as a ‘line’ and is expressly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a straight line about which a body rotates or may be supposed to rotate,” “a straight line with respect to which a body is symmetrical,” “a line of direction, motion, growth, or extension,” and “a line drawn and used as the basis of measurements.” Because an “axis” is a type of ‘line,’ it is unclear as to how the ‘first lateral pivot axis’ can be “mounted” to the ‘first end.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a first lateral pivot axis extending through said first end ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a second lateral pivot axis mounted to said second end ...” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. As previously explained above, an “axis” is a type of ‘line.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to how the ‘second lateral pivot axis’ can be “mounted” to the ‘second end.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a second lateral pivot axis extending through said second end ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said first and second pivot axes being adapted to pivot with respect to such stretcher” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, as previously explained above, an ‘axis’ is a type of ‘line,’ it is generally unclear as to how an ‘axis’ can be “adapted to pivot.” Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “such stretcher” to refer to the “stretcher” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second ‘stretcher’ which is separate and independent from the ‘stretcher’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first support being adapted to pivot about the first lateral pivot axis with respect to the stretcher and said second support being adapted to pivot about the second lateral pivot axis with respect to the stretcher.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said first connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said first support to said first lateral pivot axis” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. As previously explained above, “axis” is a term known in the art to refer to a type of ‘line.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to how the ‘first connector’ can connect the ‘first and second leg members’ to the ‘first lateral pivot axis.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said first support to said first end of the stretcher.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said second connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said second support to said second lateral pivot axis” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. As previously explained above, “axis” is a term known in the art to refer to a type of ‘line.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to how the ‘second connector’ can connect the ‘first and second leg members’ to the ‘second lateral pivot axis.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said second connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said second support to said second end of the stretcher.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said first and second legs pivot with respect to ...” in the last paragraph of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends ‘said first and second legs’ to refer to the ‘first and second legs of the first support,’ the ‘first and second legs of the second support,’ or the ‘first and second legs of each of the first and second supports.’ Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a sawhorse.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘first and second legs’ to “pivot,” such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a sawhorse,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘first and second legs,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘sawhorse’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first and second legs of each of the first and second supports are configured to pivot with respect to ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said first and second legs” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first and second legs of the first support,’ the ‘first and second legs of the second support,’ or the ‘first and second legs of each of the first and second supports.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first and second legs of each of the first and second supports.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “said respective first and second legs” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first and second legs of the first support,’ the ‘first and second legs of the second support,’ or the ‘first and second legs of each of the first and second supports.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said respective first and second legs of the first and second supports.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said first and second support members.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first and second supports.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said connector.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first connector,’ the ‘second connector,’ or each of the ‘first and second connectors,’ which have been previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘connector’ which is separate and independent from the ‘first and second connectors’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said first connector.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said first flange” several times. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the “first side flange” previously set forth in claim 15, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘first flange’ which is separate and independent from the ‘first side flange’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “said first side flange.”
Claim 17 further recites the limitation “said second flange” several times. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the “second side flange” previously set forth in claim 15, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘second flange’ which is separate and independent from the ‘second side flange’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “said second side flange.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 12 and 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harpley (International Publication Number WO 02/055270 A1, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Harpley teaches a sawhorse (abstract) comprising: a stretcher having a first end and a second end (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘stretcher,’ left end of element 2 being the ‘first end,’ and right end of element 2 being the ‘second end’; page 3, lines 26 - 27); a first support mounted to said first end of said stretcher and a second support mounted to said second end of said stretcher (figure 1, elements 5 and 6 being the ‘first support’ and elements 3 and 4 being the ‘second support’; page 3, lines 26 - 27), each of said first and second supports having first and second legs (figure 1, elements 5 and 3 being the ‘first legs’ and elements 6 and 4 being the ‘second legs’; page 3, lines 26 - 27), each of said first and second legs having a proximal end and a distal end (figure 1, top end of elements 3 – 6 being the ‘proximal ends’ and bottom ends of elements 3 – 6 being the ‘distal ends’); a first lateral pivot axis extending through said first end of said stretcher (figure 1, left element 15 being the ‘first lateral pivot axis’; page 4, lines 4 – 8) and a second lateral pivot axis extending through said second end of said stretcher (figure 1, right element 15 being the ‘second lateral pivot axis’; page 4, lines 4 – 8), said first support being adapted to pivot about the first lateral pivot axis with respect to the stretcher (figure 1, elements 5, 6, and left element 15; page 4, lines 4 – 8) and said second support being adapted to pivot about the second lateral pivot axis with respect to the stretcher (figure 1, elements 3, 4, and right element 15; page 4, lines 4 – 8); first and second connectors (figure 4, left element 17 being the ‘first connector’ and right element 17 being the ‘second connector’; page 4, lines 15 – 17), said first connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said first support to the first end of the stretcher (figures 1, 4, and 5, elements 17, 5, 6, and 2; page 4, lines 15 – 17), and said second connector pivotally connecting said proximal end of said first and second leg members of said second support to the second end of the stretcher (figures 1, 4, and 5, element 17, 5, 6, and 2; page 4, lines 15 – 17); whereby, said first and second legs of each of the first and second supports are configured to pivot with respect to their said respective connector form a first position where said first and second legs are adjacent (figure 5, dashed lines of elements 3 - 6 being the ‘first position’; page 15 – 28), to a second position wherein said distal ends of said respective first and second legs of the first and second supports are spaced apart (figure 5, solid lines of elements 3 – 6 being the ‘second position’; page 4, lines 15 – 28), said first and second legs of said first and second supports being rotatable about said respective lateral pivot axis to move between an unfolded position and a folded position (figures 3, 7, and 8, elements 3 – 6 and 15; page 4, lines 4 – 8).
As to claim 2, Harpley teaches that said stretcher has a top and sides defining a cavity (figures 2 and 5, element 10 being the ‘top’ and elements 11 and 12 being the ‘sides’; page 4, lines 1 – 3), said first and second supports being housed in said cavity when in said folded position (figures 6 and 8, elements 2 – 6).
As to claim 3, Harpley teaches that said first connector extends through said proximal ends of said first and second legs of said first support and through said first lateral axis (figures 1, 2, and 6, elements 5, 6, 17, and 15; page 4, lines 9 – 17).
As to claim 4, Harpley teaches that said second connector extends through said proximal ends of said first and second legs of said second support and through said second lateral axis (figures 1, 2, and 6, elements 3, 4, 17, and 15; page 4, lines 9 – 17).
As to claim 5, Harpley teaches that said first lateral pivot axis extends through said proximal ends of said first and second legs of said first support and said second lateral pivot axis extends through said proximal ends of said first and second legs of said second support (figures 1 and 5 – 8, elements 3 – 6 and 15; page 4, lines 4 – 5).
As to claims 6 and 7, the discussion of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 8, Harpley teaches a slot in said first and second legs of said first support (figures 1 and 2, interior of elements 5 and 6 being the ‘slot’).
As to claims 9 and 10, the discussion of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 11, Harpley teaches a slot in said first and second legs of said first support and said second support (figures 1 and 2, interior of elements 3 – 6 being the ‘slot’).
As to claim 12, Harpley teaches a spring bias mounted between said first and second legs of said first and second supports (figure 2, element 9 being the ‘spring’; page 4, lines 15 – 17).
As to claim 14, Harpley teaches the first connector is a bolt (figures 2, 4, and 5, element 17 being the ‘bolt’; page 4, lines 15 – 17).
As to claim 15, Harpley teaches that said firstr and second legs of said first and second supports have a body defined by a surface and a first side flange and second side flange (figures 1 and 2, elements 3 – 6, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Harpley teaches that said side flanges nest when said first and second legs are adjacent in said folded position (figures 3 and 6, elements 3 – 6).
As to claim 17, Harpley teaches that said first side flange of said first leg overlaps said first side flange of said second leg and said second side flange of said first leg overlaps said second side flange of said second leg when said first and second legs are in said folded position (figures 3 and 6, elements 3 – 6).
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(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harpley as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Birnbaum (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0106527).
As to claim 13, Harpley teaches the spring being a coil spring (figure 2, element 9; page 4, lines 15 – 17). Birnbaum teaches a sawhorse (abstract) comprising: a stretcher having a first end and a second end (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘stretcher’; paragraph 23); a first support mounted to said first end of said stretcher and a second support mounted to said second end of said stretcher (figure 1, element 10 being the ‘first support’ and element 12 being the ‘second support’; paragraph 23), each of said first and second supports having a first and second legs (figure 1, elements 11a and 13a being the ‘first legs’ and elements 11b and 13b being the ‘second legs’; paragraph 23); whereby, said first and second legs are configured to pivot from a first position wherein each of the first and second legs of the first and second supports are adjacent, to a second position wherein said respective first and second legs of the first and second supports are apart (figure 1, elements 11a, 11b, 13a, and 13b; paragraph 25); and a spring bias mounted between said first and second legs of said first and second supports (figures 6 – 8, element 29 being the ‘spring’; paragraph 31). Birnbaum further teaches an embodiment in which the spring is a leaf spring (paragraphs 32 and 6). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the coil spring of Harpley for the leaf spring of Birnbaum because Birnbaum teaches that either a coil spring or a leaf provides the same benefit of assisting the first and second legs into the second position (paragraphs 30 – 31), as desired by Harpley (page 4, lines 15 – 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726