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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Note: it appears that patent application numbers, not patent numbers, are being recited in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1 and 8, lines 5 and 6, respectively, “support pipe” should be “support pipes” and for claim 7, line 3, “board” should be “boards”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. For claims 1, 8 and 18, lines 5-6, 6 and 6-7, respectively, it is unclear inside what feature the support pipe is detachably connected to. For claim 1, lines 6-7, the support pipe and fixing pipe connection is unclear and it is unclear which pipe of the plural support and fixing pipes are being referred to, i.e. it should be stated that a respective support pipe is inserted into the respective fixing pipes located on the front and rear ends of the table board. For claims 1, 8 and 18, lines 10-11, it is unclear how plural support leg tubes form the disclosed support legs using one groove, i.e. it should be stated that pairs of leg tubes cross each other through their respective grooves forming two support legs. For claims 2, 9 and 19, since the table board in claims 1, 8 and 18, as a whole, attaches to the entire support assembly, it is unclear how in claims 2, 9 and 19 there can now be three table boards supporting the same support assembly. It appears that the table board includes three table board sections. For claim 3, it is unclear which fixing pipe is being referred to, since plural fixing pipes have been claimed previously. For claims 8 and 18, lines 14-15 and line 17, respectively, it is unclear which support leg is being referred to, since plural support legs have been claimed previously. For claim 8, lines 15-16, it is unclear which leg tube is being referred to, since plural leg tubes have been claimed previously. For claim 9, “said bearing pipes” lacks antecedent basis. For claim 18, line 7, it is unclear which fixing pipe is being referred to, since plural fixing pipes have been claimed previously. For claim 18, the first method step is vague, i.e.it is unclear how/why the table board is to be assembled (appears to be claimed previously as one piece) and how the pipe facilitates that assembly. For claim 19, it is unclear which fixing pipe is being referred to in line 2, since plural fixing pipes have been claimed previously.
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 1-3, 8, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley (1,417,891) in view of JPH0645535 and Cecala (4,190,001). Dudley teaches a long iron plate table (Fig. 2), comprising a table board assembly (1-3), and a support rod group (with 20, 22,16) and a support assembly with two pairs of crossed legs (15); and wherein, said table board assembly comprises a table board with three sections (1-3), said table board is provided with a front end and a rear end and said table board is detachably connected to said support assembly through said connecting beam (16). For claims 1, 8 and 18, Dudley fails to teach that both said front end and said rear end are provided with fixing pipes; and said fixing pipes are hollow in structure, and support pipes are detachably connected inside, and said support pipes are fixed inside said respective fixing pipe to support said table board. JP’535 teaches a table with a table board (1) wherein both said front end and said rear end are provided with fixing pipes (10); and said fixing pipes are hollow in structure, and support pipes (4) are detachably connected inside said respective fixing pipes (via 9) to support said table board. 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 table of Dudley by adding fixing pipes on the bottom and at the ends of the table board with support pipes extending therein and there between, such as is taught by JP’535, to strengthen the table board from underneath and help keep the sections of the table board attached together. For claims 1, 8 and 18, Dudley further fails to teach that the support assembly legs are tubes with mating grooves attached through fasteners. Cecala teaches a support assembly comprises support legs (12,14), wherein said support legs comprise a plurality of leg tubes (legs can be metal or plastic, i.e. hollow; column 3, lines 44-47) and each leg tube is provided with a groove (20,24), wherein the plurality of leg tubes can cross each other through said respective groove and are locked and fixed through fasteners (27). 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 table of Dudley by using metal tube legs and attaching pairs of crossed legs together with grooves and fasteners, such as is taught by Cecala, to provide a strong but light weight support assembly and to provide a more secure connection between the attached legs.
Wherein for claim 8, Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala further teaches said support rod group comprises a support rod (16, see annotated figure below), an inclined strut (22) and a connecting rod (20), and one end of said inclined strut is connected to said connecting rod (via the legs 15); and wherein, a bottom of said table board is provided with a connecting beam (other 16), which is connected to said inclined strut and said respective support leg, said support rod is connected to said respective leg tube, and said support legs are connected and fixed by said connecting rod.
Wherein for claim 18, Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala further teaches a method comprises the following steps: assembling said table board sections by using said support pipe; and assembling said support legs; and connecting said support legs and supporting said table board; and using said long iron plate table for daily life, work and entertainment.
For claim 2, Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala further teaches that said table board is rectangular in structure, with a length extending in a transverse direction and a width extending in a longitudinal direction, and a number of said table board is three, namely a first table board, a second table board and a third table board.
For claim 3, Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala further teaches that said fixing pipes and said connecting beams are all arranged below said first table board, said second table board and said third table board.
For claim 9, as best understood, Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala further teaches that a number of said table board is three, namely, a first table board, a second table board and a third table board; and said fixing pipes, said connecting beam and bearing/support pipes are all arranged below said first table board, said second table board and said third table board, and said bearing/support pipes are arranged in the middle of three said table board.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
1285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10-17 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Dudley in view of JP’535 and Cecala does not teach a table board with support pipes and fixing pipes attached together with screw and nut fixing means, fixing pipes each with a length equal to the width of the respective table board section, and connecting beams attached with respective legs via screws, i.e. the pivot rods of Dudley between these members could not be replaceable with screws.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE’327 teaches a table board having support pipes in fixing pipes but does not teach screw and nut fixing means. Breslow, Rosenberg et al and Decker teach a table board having support slides in fixing guides but do not teach pipes with screw and nut fixing means. Weber teaches buckles between table boards. Bussey, Prud’Homme and Decker teach a table with a support rod/beam group and crossed legs.
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
November 7, 2025
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637