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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first line the term “said said” should be changed to --said--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“leg attachment features” in claim 2, 3, 8, and 11.
“support attachment features” in claim 2, 4, 8, 10, and 11.
“insertion member” in claims 3, 4, 9, and 10.
“flexible members” in claim 3, 4, 9, and 10.
“spacing member” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-7 and 9-11 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 3 recites the limitation "said insertion members" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the term “insertion member” is recited in the 3rd line, the above plural version lacks antecedence.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an insertion member" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 4 depends already recites the term “an insertion member” in the 3rd line, rendering the claim vague and indefinite as it is not clear if this is the same or a new member. Also, claim 4, 4th line, includes the plural version as well.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said insertion members" in the 3th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the term “insertion member” is recited in the 2nd line, the above plural version lacks antecedence.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "an insertion member" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 10 depends already recites the term “an insertion member” in the 3rd line, rendering the claim vague and indefinite as it is not clear if this is the same or a new member. Also, claim 10, 4th line, includes the plural version as well.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "leg attachment features" in the 2nd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the” or “said” should precede.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "support attachment features" in the 2nd through 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the” or “said” should precede.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mehler (US 2015/0068512), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Mehler shows:
1. A portable cooking stove with an integrated collapsible table comprising:
A) a cooking system comprising:
I) a plurality of cooking elements 82 and
II) a fuel distribution system (para. 0139,0142); and
B) table features comprising:
I) more than one rigid table slat 56 connected to adjacent rigid table slat(s) (fig. 27,28A,28B,39,40),
II) a plurality of table supports configured to support said rigid table slats, and
III) a plurality of table legs (fig. 40).
2. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
A) a front assembly configured to contain said cooking system comprising:
I) table leg attachment features configured to accept a plurality of table legs and
II) table support attachment features configured to accept a plurality of said table supports (fig. 39,40).
8. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
A) a rear assembly comprising:
I) leg attachment features configured to accept a plurality of leg members and
II) table support attachment features configured to accept a plurality of said table supports (fig. 39,40).
12. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein:
A) a plurality of said rigid table slats are configured to be removably attachable, directly or indirectly, to said table supports (inherent).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
October 28, 2025
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762