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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 8 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The method requires creating an artwork while the table system can be used for other functions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 8 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,380,765 to Shiff in view of US Patent 3,799,488 to Sena, US Patent 9,220,343 to Selwa and US Patent 5,400,720 to Stevens. (Selwa and Stevens are being provided as direct evidence of the previous official notice).
Shiff teaches
1. An art table system comprising: a base (24) comprising a top face and a bottom face a turntable (48, 32) configured to be rotated about a central axis (42), said turntable secured above said base via a pair of side structural frames (34,30); a crossbar arm (38,40) affixed to said turntable, said crossbar arm configured to receive and secure a working surface (22); said turntable affixed to a pivot point (36) about which said turntable may pivot from a horizontal orientation (as best seen in figure 4) to any orientation up to and including a vertical orientation (as best seen in figures 1 and 3); an adjustable bracket (54) selectively connected to a rail of said crossbar arm via a bolt (62) connecting said adjustable bracket to a lower receiver (86); said adjustable bracket being selectively movable along said rail (via the slot 60 in the rail); wherein said adjustable bracket is configured to secure said working surface to said crossbar arm; An adjustable guide arm (74) that is connected to connections (76, 78) to allow for the adjustment of the surface around the pivot point as best seen in figure 3.
Shiff does not expressly disclose the lower receiver of the adjustable bracket received in an interior space of the rail.
Sena teaches a system holing a canvas for panting. The system includes boxed rails (16,17) having a slot (47,48). Adjustable bracket (34,35,49,51) has a bolt (52,39) and a receiver (41). As best seen in figures 1 and 3, the receiver and bolt remain in the interior of the rail. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shiff by making the rails from a boxed shape as taught by Sena as a functional equivalent and stronger rail.
Shiff does not expressly disclose a motor placed between the frame and configured to mechanically rotate the turntable.
Selwa teaches an art system with a turntable (rotating assembly, col 7, lines 25-Col 8, lines 22). A motor is attached to the rotating assembly and controlled with a remote control (Col 13, lines 16-21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the art table system of Shiff by adding a motor to the turntable as taught by Selwa to automatically rotate the canvas for a user. It should be noted that the motor would need to connect near the central rotating axis and therefore the motor inherently would be between the pair of structural frames of Shiff to maintain the other movements of the turntable.
Shiff in view of Selwa does not expressly disclose a hydraulic arm used to control motion about a pivot point.
Stevens teaches a table system with a base (16,18) and surface (20) that rotates about a pivot point (22). A hydraulic arm (24) connects between the base and the surface with pivot connections. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the art table system of Shiff in view of Selwa by replacing the adjustable guide arm with a hydraulic arm as taught by Stevens to control the tilt of the table. It should be noted that the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Shiff teaches
2. further comprising: a plurality of wheels (26) configured to allow for the table system to be rolled along a floor surface; and wherein said plurality of wheels are affixed to the bottom face of said base (as best seen in figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3,
Shiff discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except a plurality of anchors with feet to level the base. It is admitted prior art that it is well known in the art of tables, cabinets, and furniture to add threaded leveling feet adjacent or combined with casters to level an item of furniture and to raise casters off the ground. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the office action mailed 7/14/2025. See MPEP 2144.03. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shiff by adding threaded leveling feet as known in the art to level and prevent the wheels form contacting the ground.
Regarding claim 7, Shiff teaches
7. wherein said working surface comprises a canvas (Col 2, 44-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/16/2026 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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.
/TIMOTHY M AYRES/Examiner, Art Unit 3637