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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 & 19, each of these claims is indefinite because it recites a configuration inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.03(⁋ 2). In particular, the claim recites “a first pair of unit connectors spaced from each other by a transversal spacing distance in a transversal direction of the respective foot member, and a second pair of unit connectors spaced from each other by a longitudinal spacing distance in a longitudinal direction of the respective foot member, the longitudinal spacing distance being greater than the transversal spacing distance”. However, in Fig. 6 of the drawings & par. 70 of the written description of the instant application, each of the first pair of unit connectors (258 in 254a-b) is spaced from each other by the transversal spacing distance (D1), and each of the second pair of unit connectors (258 in 256a-b) is spaced from each other by the transversal spacing distance (D1), with the longitudinal spacing distance (D2) being the distance between the first pair of unit connectors (258 in 254a-b) and the second pair of unit connectors (258 in 256a-b). Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “spaced from each other by a longitudinal spacing distance in a longitudinal direction of the respective foot member” to mean that the second pair of unit connectors is spaced from the first pair of unit connectors by a longitudinal spacing distance in a longitudinal direction of the respective foot member.
Claims 2-7, 9-18, & 20-21 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 & 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balderi (5988077).
Regarding claim 1, Balderi teaches a modular table assembly comprising: a first table unit (16) including a top planar surface and a bottom surface opposite the top planar surface (Figs. 1 & 5), the first table unit further including a plurality of first foot connectors (31-32) located on the bottom surface of the first table unit; a second table unit (15) including a top planar surface for receiving one or more items thereon and a bottom surface opposite the top planar surface (Figs. 1 & 5), the second table unit further including a plurality of second foot connectors (31-32) located on the bottom surface of the second table unit, the first and second table units defining a seam (13) having a centerline and extending between the first and second table units when positioned adjacent each other (Figs. 5-6); a plurality of foot members (17-19) each having a connector portion (20) elongated in plan within a horizontal plane substantially parallel to the top planar surfaces (Figs. 6-7) and configured for supporting the first and second table units (Figs. 6-7), each foot member including a first pair of unit connectors (24, 27) spaced from each other by a transversal spacing distance (i.e., distance between 24a & 27) in a transversal direction of the respective foot member, and a second pair of unit connectors (25, 28) spaced from each other by a longitudinal spacing distance in a longitudinal direction of the respective foot member (i.e., distance between 27 & 28, and between 24 & 25), the longitudinal spacing distance being greater than the transversal spacing distance (Fig. 4), wherein each one of the foot members is selectively connectable in one of a first configuration in which the first pair of unit connectors of a respective one of the foot members are respectively connected to one of the first foot connectors and one of the second foot connectors to thereby connect together the first and second table units positioned adjacent each other (Figs. 6-7), and a second configuration in which the first pair of unit connectors of the respective one of the foot members are connected to the foot connectors of only one of the first and second table units (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Balderi teaches each one of the first (31-32 on 16) and the second (31-32 on 15) foot connectors is dividable into four sets (i.e., for each of 15 & 16, the following unit sets: one of 31, other of 31, one of 32, other of 32), each one of the sets extending along a respective edge (i.e., edge of 15 or 16 at 13) of the bottom surface of the first (16) and the second (15) table units respectively (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Balderi teaches each one of the first (31-32 on 16) and the second (31-32 on 15) foot connectors is dividable into at least one set (31 on 16; 32 on 16; 31 on 15; 32 on 15) extending along a respective edge (i.e., edge of 15 or 16 at 13) of the bottom surface of the first (16) and the second (15) table units respectively (Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balderi (5988077) in view of Delagey (9049923).
Regarding claims 2-3, Balderi teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second table units (15-16) each comprising a bottom panel (15, 16) including the bottom surface (Fig. 5); but fail(s) to teach a top panel, side walls, or extension mechanisms. However, Delagey teaches elevation means (30, 45, 49, 50) comprising a top panel (30) including a top planar surface (i.e., upper surface of 30); first and second side walls (49 on 15) extending between the top and bottom (15) panels, the bottom panel and the first and second side walls forming a table body (Figs. 1-2); and first and second extension mechanisms (50) respectively housed within the first and second side walls and operatively connected to the table body and the first and second extension mechanisms being configured to enable a displacement of the top panel between a closed configuration wherein the top panel abuts at least one of the first and second side walls (Fig. 3), and an open configuration wherein the top panel is spaced upwardly and away from the first and second side walls (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add elevation means, as taught by Delagey, to each of the table units of Balderi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the table units to be used by persons while sitting or standing (as suggested by col. 1, lines 36-39 & 52-53 of Delagey).
Regarding claim 4, Delagey teaches wherein first and second extension mechanisms that are configured to translate laterally the top panel (30) between the closed (Figs. 3) and the open configurations (Figs. 1-2), wherein a peripheral edge of the top panel is offset laterally from a peripheral edge of the table body when the top panel is in the open configuration (Figs. 2-3 & col. 4, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 5, Balderi as modified teaches a table body (15 or 16 of Balderi & 49 of Delagey) that defines an interior space (i.e., space between 49 of Delagey) and an open top (i.e., opening defined by upper edges of 49 of Delagey), the open top being restricted by the top panel (30 of Delagey) when the top panel is in the closed configuration (as in Fig. 3 of Delagey).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637