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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al (CN219613300). Huang teaches an adjustable frame (Fig. 1) comprising: a first frame (with 3) including a leg (2); a second frame (with 9); and a sliding mechanism (Fig. 2) connected to the first frame and the second frame, the sliding mechanism including: a channel bracket (5) having a slot (7), the channel bracket connected to the first frame (via 13 and fasteners); and a slider (4) configured to move within the slot, the slider connected to the second frame (see translation). Wherein the sliding mechanism is adjustable among a plurality of configurations to position the second frame with respect to the first frame to accommodate at least one working surface, the first frame and the second frame including a plurality of holes (a; see annotated figure below) for connection of the at least one working surface. The leg having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, first and second sides of the leg configured to connect to the sliding mechanism (Fig. 2). Wherein the sliding mechanism connects to the first side of the leg (via 13). Wherein the sliding mechanism connects to the second side of the leg (via 13 opposite side with 14 in Fig. 2). Wherein the first frame is connected to a first working surface (first 1; Fig. 5). Wherein the second frame is connected to a second working surface (second 1; Fig. 5). The channel bracket including a plate and lips, the plate and the lips providing the slot. The slider including a plate and arms, the arms to engage the slot. Wherein the connection between the slider and the second frame is tightened (via 6), restricting movement of the slider within the slot. The second frame including a crossbar (9), the slider connected to the crossbar (at 8). The first frame including a first leg (2) and a second leg (2 with 17 in Fig. 2) connected to the first leg (via 3), the second frame further including a third leg (2 with 18 in Fig. 1) connected to the crossbar. Wherein the crossbar is a first crossbar, the second leg connected to the first leg via second crossbars (3), the third leg connected to the first crossbar via third crossbars. Wherein the first leg includes a first motor (17) to increase or decrease a first height of the first leg, the second leg includes a second motor (17) to increase or decrease a second height of the second leg, and the third leg includes a third motor (17) to increase and decrease a third height of the third leg.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
1175
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN219613300) in view of Samikkannu et al (2015/0164217). As stated above, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a channel bracket and a slider. Member 13 is stated as being aluminum; however, that is the only material mentioned in the disclosure. Samikkannu teaches legs (230,240) made of powder coated steel or aluminum (paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Huang by making the slider cast aluminum, as is taught by member 13 and Samikkannu, and the channel bracket powder-coated steel, as also taught by Samikkannu, depending on personal preferences, material specifications required/desired, material readily available, etc. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter or obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 and MPEP 2144.04
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN219613300) in view of Rong (2024/0008635). As stated above, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 1-8 and 11-15, including a frame having a first leg including a first motor (17) to increase or decrease a first height of the first leg, a second leg including a second motor (17) to increase or decrease a second height of the second leg, and a third leg including a third motor (17) to increase and decrease a third height of the third leg. For claims 16-18, Huang fails to teach a controller for the motors. Rong teaches a table having three legs (114) adjustable via a controller (138). The controller including a memory to store at least one saved height of the frame, the control panel to receive an input from the user to save the fourth height of the frame in the memory, and the controller to execute the input (paragraphs 0080-0088). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Huang by adding a controller with the motorized height adjustable legs, such as is taught by Rong, to provide a centralized location to operate the movement of the entire desk structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
It is agreed that Huang fails to teach a frame having a sliding mechanism including: a channel bracket having a plate and lips providing a slot, the channel bracket connected to the second leg of the first frame; and a slider within the slot, the slider connected to the crossbar, wherein the slider is to slide within the slot when the connection between the slider and the crossbar is tightened to a first stage (via 6) and wherein the slider and the crossbar are to clamp the lips of the channel bracket when the connection is tightened to a second stage, such that the slider can no longer slide within the slot of the channel bracket. Huang only teaches that the bolt 6 of the slider/crossbar is frictionally fixed with the bottom lip 7 of the groove of the channel bracket.
Response to Arguments
Addressing the affidavit-Rule 130(a) submitted July 9, 2026:
The affidavit fails to meet all of the requirements under Rule 130(a). Namely, per MPEP 717.01(a)(1), the applicant did not provide “a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors/inventors of the potential prior art subject matter“. It is unclear what the relationship between Mr. Huang and Mr. Zhao is to Mr. Douglas (see In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982) and MPEP 716.10), why they are cited as inventors in the Chinese reference CN219613300, and why Mr. Douglas is not an inventor on the Chinese reference. There is no evidence that the invention in the Chinese reference is invalid. Next, the affidavit cites “internal development records”, but these records have not been included with the affidavit as evidence. The statement is defective as a declaration. MPEP 717.01(c) which requires that, under 37 CFR 1.68, wherein (2) “the declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.” Even if the statement was a compliant declaration, there is no “reasonable explanation for the presence of additional authors.” In particular, there is no explanation, in any of the documents, as to the presence of Huang. It is not enough to merely state that the presence of additional inventors is “in error”. There needs to be provided a reasonable explanation of the presence of ALL additional authors on the CN reference. Finally, since the Chinese reference was applied in both the non-final and final rejection, it is unclear why the affidavit was not provided earlier. See MPEP 717.01(f) and 1.116 (e).Therefore, the Chinese reference to Huang CN219613300 is being considered as “by another” at this time and the art rejection stands, as discussed above.
Addressing the Letter of Lu Hairong filed September 16, 2026:
The statement is defective as a declaration. MPEP 717.01(c) requires that, under 37 CFR 1.68, a declaration (1) “must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001 ) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon” and (2) “The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.” Even if the statement was a compliant declaration, there is no “reasonable explanation for the presence of additional authors.” In particular, there is no explanation, in any of the documents, as to the presence of Huang. It is not enough to merely state that the presence of additional inventors is “in error”. There needs to be a reasonable explanation of the presence of ALL additional authors on the CN reference.
Addressing the Letter of Zhao Zhenpu filed September 16, 2026:
The statement is defective as a declaration. MPEP 717.01(c) requires that, under 37 CFR 1.68, a declaration (1) “must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001 ) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon”. Even if the statement was a compliant declaration, there is no “reasonable explanation for the presence of additional authors.” In particular, there is no explanation, in any of the documents, as to the presence of Huang. It is not enough to merely state that the presence of additional inventors is “in error”. There needs to be a reasonable explanation of the presence of ALL additional authors on the CN reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm 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, 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.
Wilkens
October 4, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
