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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/25 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/31/25 have not been entered because proposed Fig. 12 constitute(s) new matter. In particular, amended Fig. 12 shows a rectangular reinforcement frame (11) split at its longitudinal midpoint; but this particular configuration of the rectangular reinforcement frame is nowhere illustrated or described in, nor necessarily implied by, the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application. Admittedly, par. 38 of the written description of the instant application does indeed mention a “square [sic] reinforcement frame”. However, neither this paragraph, nor any other portion of the written description, states or necessarily implies that the “reinforcement frame” is split at its midpoint or capable of disassembly into multiple pieces. Alternate configurations are possible; for example, a reinforcement frame divided into four pieces instead of two. As such, the particular configuration shown in proposed Fig. 12 is considered to constitute new matter.
The drawings filed 12/31/25 have not been entered because the proposed changes to Fig. 2 constitute(s) new matter. In particular, in Fig. 2 as amended, two reference numerals “11” have been added, along with lead lines extending between these added reference numerals and two U-shaped parts shown in Fig. 2 as originally filed. The evident intent of these additions is to retroactively characterize these U-shaped parts as components of the multi-part rectangular reinforcement frame (11) shown in proposed Fig. 12. As explained above, however, a rectangular reinforcement frame (11) split at its longitudinal midpoint, and capable of disassembly into multiple portions, is nowhere illustrated or described in, nor necessarily implied by, the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application. Moreover, no portion of the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application gives any indication that the U-shaped parts shown in Fig. 2 are components of the reinforcement frame (11) shown in the other originally-filed drawings. As such, the proposed changes to Fig. 2 are considered to constitute new matter.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rectangular reinforcement frame configured to be disassembled into multiple portions (cl. 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This claim recites that “the rectangular reinforcement frame (11) is configured to be disassembled into multiple portions for storage.” However, as explained in par. 3 & 4 above, this particular configuration of the rectangular reinforcement frame is nowhere illustrated or described in, nor necessarily implied by, the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application. As such, the particular configuration recited in claim 13 is considered to constitute new matter.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 & 4-5 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 claim 2, this claim recites “the first table plate (1) and the second table plate (2) comprise frames (5)” (emphasis added). However, claim 1, from which this claim depends, also recites “the first table plate (1) comprises frames (5) and a rectangular panel (6)” (emphasis added). Hence, it is unclear whether the “frames” recited in claim 2 refer to the same component(s) as, or different component(s) than, the “frames” recited in claim 1. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the “frames” recited in claim 2 refer to the same component(s) as the “frames” recited in claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-8, & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN217851817) in view of Jung (KR20170014233), Yu (CN115556809), & Palese (20110239912).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an easy-to-transport assembled table, comprising table legs (2, 12) disposed at each of four corners of a lower end surface of a table top (3) and fixed by bolts (par. 39), wherein the table top (3) is assembled by at least one first table plate (31), and the first table plate comprises frames (A in Fig. 9 Annotated) and a rectangular panel (B); wherein each of the table top’s frames (A) & rectangular panels (B) have top & bottom surfaces (Figs. 2 & 9). Yang fail(s) to teach coplanar top surfaces and depending frames.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Jung teaches table plates (1 & 5, 2 & 5) wherein top surfaces of frames (1, 2) and top surfaces of the rectangular panels (5) are located in the same plane (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the top surfaces of the frames and rectangular panels of Yang as modified coplanar, as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a cleaner, more finished appearance, thereby improving the aesthetics of the table.
Additionally, Yu teaches table plates (1) wherein bottom surfaces of frames (D in Fig. 1 Annotated) are higher (Fig. 2) than a bottom surface of a rectangular panel (E), and the frames and the bottom surface of the rectangular panel form a storage cavity (i.e., space within the table plates (1) in Fig. 2) in a surrounding manner (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the structure of Yang as modified by making the bottom surfaces of the frames higher than the bottom surfaces of the rectangular panels, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide storage space for the legs & connecting pipes when the table is disassembled (as suggested by Fig. 2 of Yu, which shows supporting components (6-7) of a table being stored within storage cavities of the table plates (1)).
PNG
media_image2.png
207
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Yang further teaches a rectangular reinforcement frame (11) disposed below the table top (3), wherein holes (i.e., holes at curved corners of 11, and at longitudinal midpoints of 111 – see Fig. 4) are disposed in the rectangular reinforcement frame, the table legs (2 & 12 – implied by par. 42) and the connecting pipes (13 – implied by par. 42 & 44), the rectangular reinforcement frame is fixed to a middle part (12) of each table leg (2, 12) by bolts and the holes (par. 42), respectively, and two side edges (111) of the rectangular reinforcement frame (11) are fixedly connected with the connecting pipes (13) by the bolts (par. 42 & 44). Yang arguably fail(s) to teach holes that are threaded. However, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making holes threaded is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the holes of Yang threaded, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bolts to pass through the holes more easily, thereby reducing the amount of effort required to assemble and disassemble the table.
Additionally, mere rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and Yu broadly teaches detachably (Figs. 2 & 21) placing table support structure (6-8) within a storage cavity (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detachably place the rectangular reinforcement frame of Yang as modified in the storage cavity thereof, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate storage & transportation of the rectangular reinforcement frame when the table is not in use (as suggested by Fig. 2 of Yu, which shows supporting components (6-7) of a table being stored within storage cavities of the table plates (1)).
Additionally, Yang further teaches an umbrella hole (par. 50) in a rectangular reinforcement frame (11); but fail(s) to teach a bracket. However, Palese teaches a bracket (58, 60, 70) disposed at a middle part of a rectangular reinforcement frame (50, 52, 54, 56), and a through-hole (70) is disposed in a middle part of the bracket (Figs. 1-6) for reinforcing and supporting a sunshade (implied by Figs. 1-6 and par. 33 & 35, which characterize 70 as an “umbrella pole support opening”), wherein the bracket is connected to the rectangular reinforcement frame by unspecified connecting means disposed at a front end (58) and a rear end (60) of the bracket (Figs. 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a bracket, as taught by Palese, for the umbrella hole of Yang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent extraneous movement by an umbrella pole (as suggested by Figs. 1-6 and par. 33 & 35 of Palese).
Additionally, Yang broadly teaches connecting means comprising bolts (par. 39 & 43) and bolt holes (Figs. 5 & 7 and par. 39 & 43) disposed in two adjacent components (4 & 22; 31 & 132) that are joined to each other by the bolts (par. 39 & 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute connecting means, as taught by Yang, for the unspecified connecting means of Yang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bracket to be selectively disconnected from the rectangular reinforcement frame, thereby facilitating repair & replacement of the bracket; and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known connecting means for another.
Additionally, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making holes threaded is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the bolt holes of Yang as modified threaded, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bolts to pass through the holes more easily, thereby reducing the amount of effort required to assemble and disassemble the table. Hence, Yang as modified would teach threaded holes (see above) disposed in a front end (58 of Palese) and a rear end (60 of Palese) of the bracket (58, 60, 70), the bracket is connected with the rectangular reinforcement frame (11 of Yang) by the threaded holes and bolts (as in par. 39 & 43 of Yang).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a table top (3) formed by assembling the first table plate (31) and a second table plate (31) which are same in size, the first table plate and the second table plate comprise frames (A) and a rectangular panel (B) surrounded inside peripheries of the frames (Fig. 9), and wherein the first & second table plates are attached to each other by unspecified first connecting means. Yang fail(s) to teach first connecting means comprising bolt holes & bolts. However, Yang broadly teaches connecting means comprising bolts (par. 39 & 43) and bolt holes (Figs. 5 & 7 and par. 39 & 43) disposed in two adjacent components (4 & 22; 31 & 132) that are joined to each other by the bolts (par. 39 & 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute connecting means, as taught by Yang, for the first connecting means of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the first & second table plates to be selectively connected to each other, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known connecting means for another. Hence, Yang as modified would teach a plurality of bolt holes (see above) disposed in an assembled side edge (C) of the frame (A), and a first table plate (31) and a second table plate (31) are assembled to form a table top (3) by the bolt heles & the bolts (as in par. 39 & 43).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches holes (par. 43 & 49) disposed in a bottom surface (implied by Fig. 2) of a side edge (C) where the first table plate (31) and the second table plate (31) are assembled and in top ends (132 – see Fig. 7 & par. 43) of connecting pipes (13), respectively, the connecting pipes are fixedly connected with the first table plate and the second table plate by bolts and the holes (par. 43 & 49), and the connecting pipes are used for assembling and reinforcing the first table plate and the second table plate (par. 43 & 49 and Fig. 2). Yang arguably fail(s) to teach holes that are threaded. However, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making holes threaded is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the holes of Yang threaded, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bolts to pass through the holes more easily, thereby reducing the amount of effort required to assemble and disassemble the table.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches connecting pipes (13) that are each a rectangular pipe, and two connecting pipes are disposed in a front- and-rear symmetrical manner (Figs. 1-2), making the assembled table plates more stable (since the connecting pipes (13) would provide additional support to the center of the table top (3)).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches a connecting member (4) that is disposed on each of four corners of a bottom surface of the table top (3), wherein holes (par. 39) are disposed in a bottom surface of the connecting member and a top surface (22) of each table leg (2, 12), respectively, and the table legs are fixed to a bottom surface of the connecting member by the bolts and the holes (par. 39). Yang arguably fail(s) to teach holes that are threaded. However, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making holes threaded is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the holes of Yang threaded, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bolts to pass through the holes more easily, thereby reducing the amount of effort required to assemble and disassemble the table.
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified teaches a storage cavity for table legs (see above); but fails to teach sizing a table leg for storage in the storage cavity. However, Yu teaches making a length of each table leg (6) is less than a width of the storage cavity (Fig. 2), thereby facilitating storage of the table legs in the storage cavity (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the length and width of each of the legs of Yang as modified to fit within the storage cavity thereof, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the legs to be more easily stored and transported in combination with the table plates when the table is disassembled (as suggested by Fig. 2 of Yu, which shows supporting components (6-7) of a table being stored within storage cavities of table plates (1)).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches a through-hole (6) disposed in a middle part of the table top (3) for installing and placing the sunshade (par. 50).
Regarding claims 2 & 6, it is noted that the table does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “welded” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the table. Therefore, the claimed table is not a different and unobvious table from the table of Yang as modified.
Regarding claim 11, Yang as modified teaches a through-hole (6 of Yang) in the table top (3 of Yang) and the through-hole A (70 of Palese) in the bracket (58, 60, 70 of Palese) are configured to receive a bracket of a sunshade (as in par. 50 of Yang & Figs. 1-6 of Palese).
Regarding claim 12, Yang as modified teaches a storage cavity (see above) as well as table support structure comprising table legs (2, 12 of Yang), connecting pipes (13 of Yang), a rectangular reinforcement frame (11 of Yang), and the bracket (58, 60, 70 of Palese); and Yu broadly teaches configuring a table support structure (6-8) and a storage cavity (Fig. 2) such that the table support structure can fit within the storage cavity (see Fig. 2). Additionally, altering the size & shape of a component have been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the table support structure and storage cavity of Yang as modified to allow the table support structure to fit within the storage cavity, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the table support structure to be more easily stored and transported in combination with the table plates when the table is disassembled (as suggested by Fig. 2 of Yu, which shows table support structure (6-7) being stored within storage cavities of table plates (1)). Hence, Yang as modified would teach a storage cavity (see above) is configured to receive all of the table legs (2, 12 of Yang), the connecting pipes (13 of Yang), the rectangular reinforcement frame (11 of Yang), and the bracket (58, 60, 70 of Palese).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN217851817), Jung (KR20170014233), Yu (CN115556809), & Palese (20110239912) in view of Mahmalji (7296522). Yang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a rectangular reinforcement frame (11 of Yang); but fail(s) to teach a rectangular reinforcement frame capable of disassembly. However, Mahmalji teaches configuring a reinforcement frame (52, 54) to be disassembled into multiple portions for storage (Figs. 15-20 & col. 5, lines 33-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the rectangular reinforcement frame of Yang as modified capable of disassembly, as taught by Mahmalji, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate repair & replacement reinforcement frame by allowing replacement of damaged portions instead of the frame in its entirety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Yang’s connecting portion (12) cannot be considered part of Yang’s leg (2, 12), because Yang’s leg “consist[s] of components 21 (the leg body) and 22 (the connecting plate), with 12 acting as an intermediary connecting piece” (Remarks at 9). However, this usage of “leg” finds support in applicant’s own use of the term. Specifically, in par. 38 of Chen (20250143450), which has the same applicant, assignee, and named inventor as the instant application, the term “leg” is also used to refer to a support component that, like Yang, has an intermediary connecting piece. Hence, the examiner submits that 2 & 12 of Yang can be properly characterized as a “leg”.
Applicant also contends that “the present invention achieves unexpected technical advantages” (Remarks at 10). However, the prosecution history of the instant application is devoid of any evidence of unexpected results. Nor is this lack of evidence remedied by applicant’s mere assertion of unexpected results, for attorney argument is not evidence. Applicant’s argument is therefore unconvincing.
As for applicant’s argument regarding the Yu reference (Remarks at 12), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks at 13), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
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