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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Roberts reference (discussed in greater depth infra), which is the prior art closest to Applicants’ claimed invention, and there would be no obvious reason to modify Roberts to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ pertinent limitations.
With respect to claims 3 and 6, the provision of a groove upon a mechanical structure in a “locked state” and the provision of a supporting member that has been inserted into an enclosure element is well known, but providing such arrangements in the context of the pertinent elements of the Roberts disclosed invention would interfere with the ability of the Roberts constituent elements/mechanisms to move and function as the reference instructs.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ claim limitations would be likely to render the Roberts assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such locking furniture element assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 3 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
Note that any change to the scope of the claimed invention related to the aforementioned claims may potentially necessitate a further search and/or consideration of the pertinent body of prior art or affect the determinations/treatment of claims set forth supra.
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 and 6 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.
The claim 3 recitation of “the pivot is positioned within a groove of the locking member in a locked state” is unclear, as it is unknown exactly which element is in said “locked state”. Should the recited “pivotable side table”, “control element”, “rod”, “pivot”, “groove” or “locking member” be in the “locked state”? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 6 recitation of “the pivotable locking mechanism of the pivotable side table is together with the supporting member” is unclear, as it is unknown exactly what structural relationship is sought. Should the pivotable locking mechanism be formed integrally with the supporting member? Alternatively, should the pivotable locking member simply directly abut the supporting member? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the supporting member inserted into the enclosure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,299,824 to Roberts et al. (“Roberts”).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts anticipates a pivotable (compare figs. 1-2) side table (e.g. pivotal tray means 36, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at col. 2, lines 16-17) comprising a table desk (e.g. planar surface 36a, as shown in figs. 1-2), a table desk frame (e.g. horizontal portion 40a, as shown in fig. 8), a supporting member (e.g. tube member 40, as shown in fig. 2), an enclosure (e.g. mechanism/rotator means 52, as shown in fig. 6; note that the overall mechanism/rotator means 52 is in the shape of an enclosure, holding internal components therein) of (compare figs. 2-3 and 6; note that mechanism/rotator means 52, with its tube member 40 is part of the rotatable means 38) a pivotable (col. 2, lines 42-43; note that rotatable means 38 is “rotatable” and thus “pivotable”) locking mechanism (e.g. rotatable means 38, as shown in figs. 1-5 and 9-10; note that per col. 2, lines 42-50, the hollow tube 40 portion of rotatable means 38 contains locking tabs or ears 44 located therein; note that these components may be seen in figs. 3 and 5), wherein the pivotable locking mechanism (38) further comprises (fig. 6; note that as indicated supra, mechanism/rotator means 52, with its tube member 40, is part of the rotatable means 38) a control element (e.g. bolt actuator 62 and head 64, together, inside of tube member 40, as shown in fig. 6; per col. 3, lines 10-17, a user grasps head 64 which is connected to bolt actuator 62 and thereby moves piston 58 to the left in order to permit rotation of the tray), a rod (e.g. reciprocal piston 58, as shown in fig. 6; note that said reciprocal piston 58 is in the shape of a rod), and a pivot (e.g. camming surfaces 60, as shown in fig. 6; note that leg members 56 pivot at least minimally about camming surfaces 60 when the reciprocal piston 58 is moved) of (fig. 6; note that camming surfaces 60 are located within reciprocal piston 58) the rod (58), a spring (e.g. spring-like leg members 56, as shown in fig. 6), a locking insertion (e.g. tab locking members 54, as shown in fig. 6) with at least one friction pad (e.g. flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached, as shown in fig. 6; note that there will be an at least minimal coefficient of friction between these flat portions of leg members 56 and the inner surface of tube 40), and a locking member (e.g. openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend, as shown in fig. 6; note that when tab locking members 54 extend through said openings, a locking function is enacted).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts anticipates the pivotable side table according to claim 1, wherein the control element (62 and 64, together) is located on an upper end (e.g. upper horizontally oriented portion, as shown in figs. 6 and 9) of the supporting member (40).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts anticipates the pivotable side table according to claim 1, wherein the control element (62 and 64, together) controls (as indicated supra, per col. 3, lines 10-17, a user grasps head 64 which is connected to bolt actuator 62 and thereby moves piston 58 to the left) the rod (58) and the pivot (60) so that the pivot (60) is released from (col. 3, lines 13-20) the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts anticipates a method of using the pivotable locking mechanism according to claim 1, wherein pushing (e.g. moving leftward, per col. 3, lines 13-14) the control element (62 and 64, together) causes transferring of force (see the construction shown in fig. 6) via the rod (58) onto the pivot (60) by which the pivot (60) is released from the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) thus releasing (col. 3, lines 13-20) the supporting member (40) in the enclosure (52) of the pivotable locking mechanism (38).
Regarding claim 8, Roberts anticipates the method of using the pivotable locking mechanism according to claim 7, wherein pushing (e.g. moving leftward, per col. 3, lines 13-14) the control element (62 and 64, together) causes transferring of force (see the construction shown in fig. 6) via the rod (58) onto the pivot (60) by which the pivot (60) is released from the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) thus releasing (col. 3, lines 13-20) the table desk (36a).
Regarding claim 9, Roberts anticipates the method of using the pivotable locking mechanism according to claim 7, wherein releasing (col. 3, lines 20-23) the control element (62 and 64, together) causes transferring of force (see the construction shown in fig. 6) via the spring (56) onto the pivot (60) by which the pivot (60) is locked to (e.g. by way of intervening connected parts) the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) thus fixing a position (col. 3, lines 20-23) of the table desk (36a).
Regarding claim 10, Roberts anticipates the method of using the pivotable locking mechanism according to claim 9, wherein releasing (col. 3, lines 20-23) the control element (62 and 64, together) causes transferring of force (see the construction shown in fig. 6) via the spring (56) onto the pivot (60) by which the pivot (60) is locked to (e.g. by way of intervening connected parts) the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) thus fixing a position of the supporting member (40) in the enclosure (52) of the pivotable locking mechanism (38).
Regarding claim 11, Roberts anticipates a pivotable (compare figs. 1-2) side table (e.g. pivotal tray means 36, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at col. 2, lines 16-17) for (figs. 1-2) a medical chair (e.g. wheel chair 20, as shown in figs. 1-2), the pivotal side table (36) comprising a table desk (e.g. planar surface 36a, as shown in figs. 1-2) attached to (compare figs. 1-2 and 8) a table desk frame (e.g. horizontal portion 40a, as shown in fig. 8), a supporting member (e.g. tube member 40, as shown in fig. 2) having a bottom part (e.g. lower vertically oriented portion, as shown in figs. 2-3 and 5) supported in relation to (compare figs. 3 and 5-6) an enclosure (e.g. mechanism/rotator means 52, as shown in fig. 6; note that the overall mechanism/rotator means 52 is in the shape of an enclosure, holding internal components therein), which is attachable to (figs. 1-2) the medical chair (20), the enclosure (52) forming a part of (compare figs. 2-3 and 6; note that mechanism/rotator means 52, with its tube member 40 is part of the rotatable means 38) a pivotable (col. 2, lines 42-43; note that rotatable means 38 is “rotatable” and thus “pivotable”) locking mechanism (e.g. rotatable means 38, as shown in figs. 1-5 and 9-10; note that per col. 2, lines 42-50, the hollow tube 40 portion of rotatable means 38 contains locking tabs or ears 44 located therein; note that these components may be seen in figs. 3 and 5), the pivotable locking mechanism (38) further comprising (fig. 6; note that as indicated supra, mechanism/rotator means 52, with its tube member 40, is part of the rotatable means 38) a control element (e.g. bolt actuator 62 and head 64, together, inside of tube member 40, as shown in fig. 6; per col. 3, lines 10-17, a user grasps head 64 which is connected to bolt actuator 62 and thereby moves piston 58 to the left in order to permit rotation of the tray) supported in relation to (compare figs. 3, 6 and 9) an upper part (e.g. upper horizontally oriented portion, as shown in figs. 6 and 9) of the supporting member (40) and coupled to (fig. 6) an upper part (e.g. right portion, as shown in fig. 6) of a rod (e.g. reciprocal piston 58, as shown in fig. 6; note that said reciprocal piston 58 is in the shape of a rod) and a pivot (e.g. camming surfaces 60, as shown in fig. 6; note that leg members 56 pivot at least minimally about camming surfaces 60 when the reciprocal piston 58 is moved) coupled to (fig. 6) a lower part (e.g. left portion, as shown in fig. 6) of the rod (58), the pivotable locking mechanism (38) further comprising (note that as indicated supra, tube member 40 is part of the rotatable means 38) a spring (e.g. spring-like leg members 56, as shown in fig. 6), a locking insertion (e.g. tab locking members 54, as shown in fig. 6) with at least one friction pad (e.g. flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached, as shown in fig. 6; note that there will be an at least minimal coefficient of friction between these flat portions of leg members 56 and the inner surface of tube 40) and a locking member (e.g. openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend, as shown in fig. 6; note that when tab locking members 54 extend through said openings, a locking function is enacted) located inside (compare figs. 3 and 5-6) the enclosure (52), wherein the control element (62 and 64, together) is moveable (fig. 6; per col. 3, line 7, piston 58, into which bolt actuator 62 and head 64 are threaded, is “reciprocable”) to affect movement (as indicated supra, per col. 3, lines 10-17, a user grasps head 64 which is connected to bolt actuator 62 and thereby moves piston 58 to the left) of the rod (58) and the pivot (60) in a first direction (e.g. leftward, as shown in fig. 6) against force of (fig. 6) the spring (56) to release (col. 3, lines 4-7) the locking insertion (54) with at least one friction pad (aforementioned flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached) from the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) to permit pivotal movement (col. 3, lines 13-20) of the table desk (36a), and wherein upon releasing (col. 3, lines 20-23) the control element (62 and 64, together), the spring (56) urges (see the construction shown in fig. 6) the rod (58) and the pivot (60) in a second direction (e.g. rightward, as shown in fig. 6) to engage the locking insertion (54) with at least one friction pad (aforementioned flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached) from the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) to resist movement (col. 3, lines 20-23) of the table desk (36a). Also note that the instant claim is drawn to a pivotable side table- not a method of operation thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Roberts anticipates the pivotable side table according to claim 11, wherein the control element (62 and 64, together) is located at an upper end (e.g. upper horizontally oriented portion, as shown in figs. 6 and 9) of the supporting member (40).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,878,685 to Bahm (“Bahm”).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts discloses the pivotable side table according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the rod (58), the pivot (60), the spring (56), the locking insertion (54) and at least one friction pad (aforementioned flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached) and the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) are made from metal or metal alloy.
Bahm teaches the concept of providing wheelchair tray assembly (e.g. assembly shown in fig. 1) components made from metal or a metal alloy (col. 2, lines 26-28 and col. 3, lines 11-15).
Given that Roberts and Bahn both concern pivotable tray assemblies designed to be attached to wheelchairs, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Bahm concept of using metal to form various components to the Roberts assembly, thereby forming the Roberts constituent components from metal as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Roberts assembly that optimally strong and durable.
Regarding claim 13, Roberts discloses the pivotable side table according to claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the rod (58), the pivot (60), the spring (56), the locking insertion (54) and at least one friction pad (aforementioned flat portions of leg members 56 to which tab locking members 54 are attached) and the locking member (aforementioned openings in rotatable tube 40 through which tab locking members 54 extend) are made from metal or metal alloy.
Bahm teaches the concept of providing wheelchair tray assembly (e.g. assembly shown in fig. 1) components made from metal or a metal alloy (col. 2, lines 26-28 and col. 3, lines 11-15).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Bahm concept of using metal to form various components to the Roberts assembly, thereby forming the Roberts constituent components from metal as desired.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicants’ argument that the piston in Roberts does not pivot, nor is it spring-biased (Arguments/Remarks pg. 6), the Office respectfully asserts that within the prior and present issued rejections, the Roberts piston 58 is equated to Applicants’ claimed “rod” element. The Office notes that as presently drafted, Applicants’ claims do not actually call for said rod itself to pivot. Rather, the claims merely call for the side table, locking mechanism and table desk, to be pivotable. The claims further call for a “pivot” element that is part of or coupled to the rod (e.g. see claims 1 and 11). However, no part of the claims call for the rod to specifically be pivotable. Additionally, Applicants’ claims do not actually call for the said rod to be “spring-biased”. Rather, the claims merely call for a spring element that is capable of transfer force to the aforementioned pivot element and rod element under certain circumstances. However, no part of the claims call for the rod to be at all times, specifically “spring-biased”. In the event that Applicants actually desire a configuration in which the rod is both pivotable and spring-biased, Applicants are encouraged to duly amend the claim language to clearly establish such, provided that sufficient basis is provided within the originally filed specification.
In response to Applicants’ argument that Roberts does not disclose a spring that urges the rod or pivot in a direction (Arguments/Remarks pg. 6), the Office respectfully asserts that Roberts fig. 6 exhibits spring-like leg members 56, which engage camming surfaces 60 of reciprocal piston 58 toward a rightward direction when the head 64 is pressed inward by a user. Further, Roberts col. 3, lines 13-23 indicates that in order to release the tray, piston 58 is moved to the left to engage and depress less members 56, permitting rotation of the tray, and afterward, said reciprocal piston 58 moves to the right (due to the structural relationship existing between leg members 56 and camming surfaces 60 of reciprocal piston 58, as shown in fig. 6) to reestablish a locked configuration. In the event that Applicants actually desire a particular shaping or structural/spatial arrangement of constituent parts regarding this limitation, Applicants are encouraged to duly amend the claim language to clearly establish such, provided that sufficient basis is provided within the originally filed specification.
In response to Applicants’ argument that Roberts does not disclose a locking insertion having at least one friction pad (Arguments/Remarks pg. 6), the Office respectfully asserts that Roberts fig. 6 exhibits tab lock members 54 (inserted into openings in rotatable tube 40, as shown in fig. 6). These tab lock members 54 each contain flat inner surfaces which contain thereon flat portions of leg members 56. As indicated supra, there will be an at least minimal coefficient of friction between these flat portions and the inner surface of tube 40 against which it slides, per the configuration shown in fig. 6. In the event that Applicants actually desire a particular shaping or structural/spatial arrangement of constituent parts regarding this limitation, Applicants are encouraged to duly amend the claim language to clearly establish such, provided that sufficient basis is provided within the originally filed specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 J. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights