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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 18/563298, filed on 11/21/2023. Claims 1-33 are currently pending. Claims 14-16,18,21-24,26-28 and 32-33 have been canceled and withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The “skirt is adapted to cooperate with the workstation as a cover or lid to the workstation in the collapsed configuration” of claim 6. Fig. 4B shows the skirt (236) located at the rear of the workstation (210) but the figures fail to show the skirt (236) being used as a cover or lid.
The “skirt comprises an L-shaped feature… for stacking workstations on top of each other in the collapsed configuration” of claim 7. Figs. 2C and 2D show the workstations in collapsed configuration (10’) and stacked. The figures fail to show how the skirt (236) is used for stacking workstations on top of each other.
The “skirt comprises lights or a display” of claim 8. Fig. 4B shows the skirt (236) but fails to show lights or a display on the skirt as claimed.
The “the end hub includes a housing and one or more power outlets, ethernet ports, and other supply lines for the individual workstations along the row” of claim 25. Fig. 5 shows the hub 270 but fails to show any details of one or more of the claimed power outlets, ethernet ports, or other supply lines.
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 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 2-3, 11-12, and 17-19 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 2 recites the limitation "the folded configuration" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as the “second collapsed configuration” as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the shelf comprises a dashboard” in line 1. This claim fails to particularly point out whether it is either one of the left side shelf or the right side shelf or both the left and right side shelves of claim 1 that require a dashboard. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as a dashboard on either one of the left or right side shelves.
The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP 2173.05(a) I.
Regarding claim 11, the term “features” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term and it is unclear how a feature may differ from a cutout in the phrase “features or cutouts” as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the term “features” will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 12 is rejected for being dependent on claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, the term “pie-shaped” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term and it is unclear what may be considered pie-shaped (ex: circle, triangle, triangle with one curved side, etc.). For the purposes of examination, the term “pie-shaped” will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 19 is rejected for being dependent on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Newhouse (U.S. Pat. No. 5083512).
With respect to claim 13, Newhouse discloses a workstation array comprises a plurality of workstations (Fig. 23, desks 10) arranged in a linear formation extending from a first workstation to a last workstation (left, center, and right desks arranged linearly as shown in Fig. 23).
With respect to claim 17, Newhouse discloses a pie-shaped spacer (Fig. 24, spacer 312) and wherein the pie-shaped spacer (312) causes the array to take an arcuate shape based on the angle of the spacer (connected left, center, and right desks 10 form an arc shape as shown in Fig. 23).
With respect to claim 19, Newhouse discloses wherein the angle of the spacer (312) ranges from 10-30 degrees (Col. 4, lines 24-26, “Two spacers will provide an angle of 150 degrees between adjoining desks”).
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) in view of Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900).
With respect to claim 1, Holt discloses a computer workstation (Fig. 1A, recessed-computer furniture unit 100) comprises: a frame (front panel 106 and sides 108), a table top (upper panel 102), a plurality of legs (legs 140), a cavity (computer space formed by lower surface 122 and upper access panel 102A), computer electronics arranged in the cavity (computer housing 192), and a display (monitor 190); and wherein the workstation includes a first open configuration (open position shown in Fig. 1A) in which the workstation (100) stands upright on the legs (140) and the display (190) is positioned substantially perpendicular to the table top (display 190 perpendicular to upper panel 102 as shown in Fig. 1A) and a second collapsed configuration (collapsed position as shown in Fig. 1B) in which the display (190) is folded into the tabletop (102).
Holt fails to disclose a second collapsed configuration in which the legs are folded into the table top.
Kopish discloses a table with a collapsed configuration (folded position as shown in Fig. 11) in which the legs (Fig. 10, leg assemblies 24) is folded into the table top (table top 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the legs of Holt with folding leg assemblies such as taught by Kopish in order to provide a more compact table that can be easily stored or transported. It’s further noted that the substitution of one known element (legs of Holt) for another (folding leg assemblies of Kopish) would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I.B).
With respect to claim 9, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above. Holt further discloses at least one cable management conduit (Fig. 5, cable management space formed between lower surface 122 and table top 102) laterally extending from the left side to the right side (space extends from left to right as shown in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 10, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above. Holt further discloses the conduit (Fig. 5, cable management space formed between lower surface 122 and table top 102) is formed by a removable back plate or cover (maintenance panel 110).
With respect to claim 29, Holt discloses a collapsible computer workstation (Fig. 1A, recessed-computer furniture unit 100) comprising: a frame (front panel 106 and sides 108), a table top (upper panel 102), a plurality of legs (legs 140), a computer cavity (computer space formed by lower surface 122 and upper access panel 102A), and a display strut (upper access panel 102A) for supporting a display (monitor 190), wherein the workstation (100) includes an upright first configuration (open position shown in Fig. 1A) in which the legs (140) and display strut (102A) extend substantially away from the table top (legs 140 and upper access panel 102A extend substantially away from table top 102 as shown in Fig. 1A), and a low profile second configuration (collapsed position as shown in Fig. 1B) in which the strut (upper access panel 102A) extends substantially parallel to table top (102A parallel to table top 102 as shown in Fig. 1B).
Holt fails to disclose the low profile second configuration in which the legs extend substantially parallel to the tabletop.
Kopish discloses a low profile second configuration (folded position as shown in Fig. 11) in which the legs (Fig. 10, leg assemblies 24) extend substantially parallel to the tabletop (legs assemblies parallel to table top 22 as shown in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the legs of Holt with folding leg assemblies such as taught by Kopish in order to provide a more compact table that can be easily stored or transported. It’s further noted that the substitution of one known element (legs of Holt) for another (folding leg assemblies of Kopish) would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I.B).
With respect to claim 30, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above. Holt further discloses a display (Fig. 1A, monitor 190) coupled to the display strut (upper access panel 102A).
With respect to claim 31, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above. Holt further discloses computer electronics (Fig. 1A, computer housing 192) arranged withing the computer cavity (computer space formed by lower surface 122 and upper access panel 102A).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) in view of Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in further view of McKenzie (U.S. Pat. No. 8893628).
With respect to claim 2, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above. Holt further discloses a region (Fig. 1A, central region of tabletop 102) where the display (monitor 190) is stored when the display is in the folded configuration (collapsed position as shown in Fig. 1B).
Holt in view of Kopish fails to disclose an elevated left side shelf and an elevated right side shelf arranged on the table top defining a region between the shelves where the display may be stored.
McKenzie discloses an elevated left side shelf (Fig. 4, left enclosure 134L) and an elevated right side shelf (right enclosure 134R) arranged on the table top (work surface 131) defining a region between the shelves where the display may be stored (central region of work surface 131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table top of Holt in view of Kopish to include left and right enclosures such as taught by McKenzie in order to provide additional storage space for computer accessories and to further provide an additional surface for users to place their personal items.
With respect to claim 3, McKenzie further discloses wherein the shelf (Fig. 4, left and right enclosures 134L,134R) comprises a dashboard (dashboard assembly 134) including a plurality of connectors (connectors 132), knobs, levers and/or switches for power, audio, volume, USB, and/or ethernet (Col. 5, lines 21-26, “the front dashboard assembly 134 provides externally accessible connectors 132, for example, power outlets, speaker jacks, headphone jacks, and/or microphone jacks…user lighting, memory ports such as universal serial bus ports”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention when modifying the table of Holt in view of Kopish to include left and right enclosures as taught in claim 2, to further include connectors such as taught by McKenzie in order to provide users with multiple connection points or power outlets for various computer accessories.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) in view of Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in further view of Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 201550300627).
With respect to claim 4, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above except a plurality of lights, and optionally, the lights are arranged along one or more of the edges or sides of the workstation.
Wang discloses a plurality of lights (Fig. 1, light strings 201) arranged along one or more edges or sides of the workstation (sting lights arranged along edges of tabletop panel 101 as shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table of Holt in view of Kopish to include lights such as taught by Wang in order to provide the user with functional or aesthetic lighting.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) in view of Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in further view of Weiler (U.S. Pat. No. 4392436).
With respect to claim 5, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above except a skirt, detachably couplable to the rear or back of the workstation in the first open configuration.
Weiler discloses a skirt (Fig. 1, modesty panel 41), detachably couplable to the rear or back of the workstation (sidewall 21 of tabletop 20) in the first open configuration (Fig. 1, configuration with drop leaf 50 extended).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table of Holt in view of Kopish to include a modesty panel such as taught by Weiler in order to provide users with under-desk privacy while they are seated.
With respect to claim 6, Holt in view of Kopish in further view of Weiler discloses the limitations set forth above. Weiler further discloses the skirt (modesty panel 41) is capable of cooperating with the workstation (tabletop 20) as a cover or lid to the workstation in the collapsed configuration (modesty panel 41 capable of being detached and covering table top 20).
With respect to claim 7, Holt in view of Kopish in further view of Weiler discloses the limitations set forth above. Weiler further discloses the skirt (modesty panel 41) comprises an L- shaped feature (upper flange 43) for connecting the skirt to the tabletop in the open configuration (Col. 2, lines 52-53, “upper flange 43 abuts the lower edge of the side wall 21 of the table”), and for stacking workstations on top of each other in the collapsed configuration (modesty panel 41 capable of being used as a spacer or cover between stacked tables).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention when modifying the table of Holt in view of Kopish to include a modesty panel such as taught by Weiler, to further include the flange in order to securely and rigidly attach the modesty panel to the table, and to further act as a spacer or riser between two stacked tables.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) and Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in view of Weiler (U.S. Pat. No. 4392436) in further view of Burgio (U.S. Pat. No. 10101521).
With respect to claim 8, Holt in view of Kopish in further view of Weiler discloses the limitations set forth above except the skirt comprises lights or a display.
Burgio discloses lights or a display (Fig. 3, laminate system 10) for a skirt (Col. 3, lines 42-46, “laminate system 10 may be utilized in…modesty panels… or other substantially planar surfaces that a user may wish to illuminate”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the skirt of Holt in view of Kopish in further view of Weiler to include a laminate system such as taught by Burgio in order to provide the user or spectators with functional or aesthetic lighting.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) in view of Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in further view of Vander Park (U.S. Pat. No. 4838177).
With respect to claim 11, Holt in view of Kopish discloses the limitations set forth above except the cover has incorporated therein features or cutouts, serving to provide custom graphics or logos as well as venting.
Vander Park discloses a cover (Fig. 13, vent cover 210) has incorporated therein features or cutouts (slots 212), capable of providing custom graphics or logos as well as venting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the maintenance panel of Holt to include ventilation slots such as taught by Vander Park in order to allow hot air to flow out and to further prevent overhearing of the computer equipment. It is further noted that aesthetic design changes relating to ornamentation only (cutouts arranged as graphics or logos) which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (ventilation slots of Vander Park). See MPEP 2144.04 I.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (U.S. Pat. No. 7029079) and Kopish (U.S. Pat. No. 6647900) in view of Vander Park (U.S. Pat. No. 4838177 in further view of Wang (201550300627).
With respect to claim 12, Holt in view of Kopish if further view of Vander Park discloses the limitations set forth above except the conduit comprises lights, operable to illuminate the conduit and cutouts.
Wang discloses lights (Fig. 1, light string 201), operable to illuminate furniture (furniture body 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable management space of Holt in view of Kopish in further view of Vander Park to include lights such as taught by Wang in order to provide light to a user while managing and organizing computer accessory cables.
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newhouse (U.S. Pat. No. 5083512) in view of Petrick (U.S. Pat. No. 7357086).
With respect to claim 20, Newhouse discloses the limitations set forth above except a vertical divider between adjacent workstations.
Petrick discloses a vertical divider (Fig. 1, screen 26) between adjacent workstations (tables 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desks of Newhouse to include vertical dividers such as taught by Petrick in order to provide privacy to the users sitting at adjacent desks.
With respect to claim 25, Newhouse discloses the limitations set forth above except an end hub at one end of the workstation array, and wherein the end hub includes a housing and one or more power outlets, ethernet ports, and other supply lines for the individual workstations along the row.
Petrick discloses an end hub (Fig. 1, support 16) at one end of the workstation array (work space system 10), and wherein the end hub (16) includes a housing (Fig. 2, outer body of 16) and one or more power outlets (power connections 18), ethernet ports (data ports 20), and other supply lines for the individual workstations along the row (Fig, 1, tables 24).
Conclusion
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 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637