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
The drawings were received on 9/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 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.
Claims 1 and 8 repeatedly recite the limitation “a surface… facing the customer” rendering the claims indefinite because the meaning of “a surface” may vary depending on where the customer is located in relation to the tray, and what portion of the customer the tray is supposed to be facing (e.g., face, torso, legs).
Claims 2-3, 5 are rejected for depending from claim 1, claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected for depending from claim 8.
Claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation "the dining tray apparatus" in line 11 of claim 1 and line 10 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the “dining tray apparatus” will be read as the “dining tray” recited in the preamble.
Claims 2-3, 5 are rejected for depending from claim 1, claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected for depending on claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Raqadi (U.S. Pat. No. 9089203) in view of Ramsay (U.S. Pat. No. 5024428).
With respect to claim 1, Al-Raqadi discloses dining tray, comprising: a first dining tray portion (Fig. 1, base panel 12); a second dining tray portion (upper panel 24) able to be configured with the first dining tray portion (base panel 12) in an expanded dining tray configuration (Fig. 1 shows desk extension 10 in deployed and expanded); and an attaching clamp (Fig. 3, clamp bolt 60 with clamp finger 66), coupled to at least one of the first and second dining tray portions (clamp bolt 60 with clamp finger 66 is coupled to base panel 12 via attachment plate 56), capable of being removably attached to a tabletop (Fig. 1, Desk D) by a customer at a restaurant; wherein, when the dining tray (desk extension 10) is attached to the tabletop (Desk D), a surface of the first dining portion (top surface of base panel 12) facing the customer in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (top surface of 12 is flat), a surface of the second dining portion (upper portion 24) facing the customer in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (first surface 26 is a flat, smooth surface), and a surface of the dining tray (10) facing the customer when the dining tray is not in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (top surface of base panel 12 remains flat in a non-expanded configuration as shown in Fig. 7).
Al-Raqadi fails to disclose an adjustable magnet piece for a table raise that has padding to protect the tabletop.
Ramsay discloses an adjustable magnet piece (Fig. 1, clamping block 1 with magnetic strip M) for a table raise that has padding (cushion layer F) to protect the clamped surface (Col. 2, lines 51-53, “a pair of such blocks… is used to cushion and protect a workpiece”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desk extension of Al-Raqadi to include a cushioned clamping block such as taught by Ramsay in order to cushion and protect the table of Al-Raqadi, preventing scratching or other damage to the table due to tightening the clamping.
With respect to claim 2, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay sets forth the limitation above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses wherein the first and second dining tray portions (base panel 12 and upper panel 24) are configurable by being foldable via at least one hinge (Fig. 2 shows lower hinge points 38a, 38b and upper hinge points 40a, 40b).
With respect to claim 3, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay sets forth the limitation above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses wherein the hinge (hinge points 38a, 38b) folds along an axis that is: (i) perpendicular to an edge of the tabletop, or (ii) parallel to the edge of the tabletop (Fig. 1 shows rotational axis of hinge points 38a, 38b is parallel to an edge of desk D).
With respect to claim 5, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay sets forth the limitation above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses a swivel lock (Fig. 2, stop limit bar) to prevent unintended motion of the dining tray (Col. 3, lines 29-31, “The exact location or position of the stop limit bar 44 is set to stop the rotation of the second or upper panel 24”).
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Raqadi (U.S. Pat. No. 9089203) in view of Ramsay (U.S. Pat. No. 5024428) in further view of Bar-Akiva (WO2013140404).
With respect to claim 8, Al-Raqadi discloses a method of using a dining tray, comprising: removably connecting an attaching clamp (Fig. 3, clamp bolt 60 with clamp finger 66), coupled to a first or second dining tray portion (clamp bolt 60 with clamp finger 66 is coupled to base panel 12 via attachment plate 56), to a tabletop (desk D); and configuring the first and second dining tray portions (base panel 12 and upper portion 24) in an expanded dining tray configuration (Fig. 1 shows desk extension 10 in deployed and expanded configuration) wherein, when the dining tray (desk extension 10) is attached to the tabletop (Desk D), a surface of the first dining portion (top surface of base panel 12) facing the user in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (top surface of 12 is flat), a surface of the second dining portion (upper portion 24) facing the user in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (first surface 26 is a flat, smooth surface), and a surface of the dining tray (10) facing the user when the dining tray is not in the expanded dining tray configuration is flat (top surface of base panel 12 remains flat in a non-expanded configuration as shown in Fig. 7).
Al-Raqadi fails to disclose the use of an adjustable magnet piece for a table raise that has padding to protect the tabletop.
Ramsay discloses using an adjustable magnet piece (Fig. 1, clamping block 1 with magnetic strip M) for a table raise that has padding (cushion layer F) to protect the clamped surface (Col. 2, lines 51-53, “a pair of such blocks… is used to cushion and protect a workpiece”. Figs, 5A and 5B further shows a pair of clamping blocks 1 situated between the clamp and a table to create space between the table and the clamp, and support “unsymmetrical areas”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of attaching the desk extension of Al-Raqadi to include the use of a cushioned clamping block such as taught by Ramsay in order to cushion and protect the table of Al-Raqadi, preventing scratching or other damage to the table due to tightening the clamping, and to further provide spacing between the clamp and the table, especially for even distribution of force around unsymmetrical areas such as taught by Ramsay.
Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay teaches a desk extension removably attached to a desk or table, but fails to disclose the desk extension is removably attached to the table top by a customer at a restaurant.
Bar-Akiva discloses a tray (Fig. 1, table accessory 100 with storage receptacle 108) removably connected to a table top (table 120) by a customer at a restaurant (Page 12, lines 31-32, “table accessory 100 may be mounted onto the ledge of a bar counter by a bar patron”. Page 12, lines 1-3, “Table accessory may generally by mounted onto the ledge of… a table at an eating/drinking establishment (e.g., restaurant, bar, cafe)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the desk extension of Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in a restaurant setting such as taught by Bar-Akiva in order to allow customers to easily place and store personal items or beverages in a designated area, and then easily remove and reattach the desk extension when moving to another table or area of the restaurant.
With respect to claim 9, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in further view of Bar-Akiva discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses wherein the first and second dining tray portions (base panel 12 and upper panel 24) are configurable by being foldable via at least one hinge (Figs. 5 and 6 shows upper panel 24 hinging about points 40a, 38a).
With respect to claim 10, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in further view of Bar-Akiva discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses wherein the hinge folds along an axis that is: (i) perpendicular to an edge of the tabletop, or (ii) parallel to the edge of the tabletop (Figs. 5 and 6 shows upper panel 24 hinging about points 40a, 38a. Fig. 1 shows rotational axis of hinge points 38a, 40a is parallel to an edge of desk D).
With respect to claim 12, Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in further view of Bar-Akiva discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Al-Raqadi) further discloses utilizing a swivel lock (Fig. 2, stop limit bar) to prevent unintended motion of the dining tray (Col. 3, lines 29-31, “The exact location or position of the stop limit bar 44 is set to stop the rotation of the second or upper panel 24”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s response to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102: Independent claims 1 and 8 have been amended to overcome the rejection, however claims 1 and 8 have been rejected under U.S.C. §103 as mapped in the rejection above.
Claim 1: In response to applicant’s argument that independent claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of depending claims 4, 6, and 7, Al-Raqadi alone fails to teach the limitation of amended claim 1, however Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay teaches this limitation. It would have been obvious to include the clamping block of Ramsay on the desk extension of Al-Raqadi to “cushion and protect” (Ramsay, Col. 2, lines 51-53) the table of Al-Raqadi, preventing scratching or other damage to the table due to tightening the clamp.
Regarding the new limitation of a surface of the of the first and second dining tray portion facing the customer in an expanded configuration is flat and a surface of the dining tray apparatus facing the customer when the dining tray is not in the expanded configuration is flat, applicant argues that Al-Raqadi does not teach a flat surface (surface of upper portion 24) because it includes article holder recesses (34a, 34b, 34c). The examiner takes the position that the first surface (designated as 26) of upper portion 24 of Al-Raqadi is a flat, even, and smooth surface. The claimed flat surface does not preclude the surface from also having recesses for articles. Additionally, “a surface” may refer to the several surfaces of the upper portion 24 that are capable of facing the customer including upper surface 26, the side edges, or the inner surface of recesses 34b & 34c., all of which are flat.
In response to applicant’s argument that Al-Raqadi teaches a two-level panel system, not a single flat surface of the claimed invention that can be used for meal, there is no support in the specification or the language of independent claim 1 that the expanded configuration requires the first and second portions to extend into a single flat surface. The limitation of claim 1 requires the first and second dining portions have a flat surface in an expanded configuration, but does not require the flat surfaces of the first and second dining portions to also be coplanar with one another. Al-Raqadi teaches a first tray portion (upper portion 24) with a flat surface in an expanded configuration (configuration as shown in Fig. 3), as well as a second tray portion (base panel 12) with a flat surface in an expanded configuration.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed dual-panel fold-out design may let “a person eat comfortably without having to lean forward (which can cause back pain)”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the two-level tray of Al-Raqadi is a tray that hold items in both and expanded and non-expanded configuration which may include items for eating a meal such as plates, utensils, and cups.
In response to applicant's argument that the clamping block of Ramsay is “very different from an adjustable magnet piece for a table raise that has padding to protect the tabletop” for supporting the dining tray when a tabletop has a lip along the edge, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the clamping block 1 of Ramsay is magnetic (magnetic strip covering M) on one side and has padding (cushion layer F) on the side opposite of magnetic side, such as disclosed by the claimed magnet table raise shown in Fig. 9, which creates space between the workpiece (W) and the claim (C), in the same manner as the claimed magnetic table raise creating space between the table and the upper portion of the clamp.
Claim 8: In response to applicant’s argument that independent claim 8 has been amended to include the limitations of depending claims 11, 13, 14, Al-Raqadi alone fails to teach the limitation of amended claim 8, however Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in further view of Bar-Akiva teaches this limitation. It would have been obvious to include the use of the clamping block of Ramsay on the desk extension of Al-Raqadi to “cushion and protect” (Ramsay, Col. 2, lines 51-53) the table of Al-Raqadi, preventing scratching or other damage to the table due to tightening the clamp and to further create space between the clamp and the table when using on “unsymmetrical areas” (Ramsay, Col. 3, lines 57-60). It would have further been obvious to use the desk extension and clamping block of Al-Raqadi in view of Ramsay in a restaurant setting by a customer, such as taught by Bar-Akiva and mapped in the rejection above, in order to allow customers to easily remove and reattach the tray when moving to a different area of the restaurant.
The examiner’s response to applicant’s arguments regarding new limitation of a surface of the of the first and second dining tray portions being flat as discussed in the examiner’s response to amended claim 1 above further applies to independent claim 8.
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
/HIWOT E TEFERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3637