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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “branches has pair” should read –branches has a pair--. 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 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the first and second worksurface pieces" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if it were dependent from claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10 & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirth et al. (US patent 2015/0173505) (hereinafter Mirth) in view of Hendershot et al. (US patent 5,636,822) (hereinafter Hendershot).
Regarding claim 1, Mirth discloses a conference table comprising: a base (24); and a worksurface (12) supported by the base and comprising a peripheral edge (Fig. 1), wherein the worksurface comprises an aperture comprising a node (44) and branches (30, Fig. 2D shows two branches 30 extending from node 44) extending radially outwardly from the node, wherein each of the branches comprises a greatest width, and wherein the node comprises a width greater than the greatest width of each of the branches (Fig. 2F), and wherein each of the branches has a proximal end opening into and communicating with the node (Fig. 2F) and a terminal end spaced from the node (Fig. 2), wherein each of the terminal ends is located within 36 inches of the peripheral edge of the worksurface ([0058]).
Mirth does not disclose at least three branches extending radially from the node. Hendershot teaches a tabletop comprising an aperture comprising a node and at least three branches extending radially outwardly from the node (see annotated Fig. 3). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirth wherein there are three branches extending radially outwardly from the node in view of Hendershot’s teaching, because this arrangement would have allowed a wire to move through the aperture as taught by Hendershot at Col. 6: 24-55.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein each of the branches has pair of upper edges on an upper surface of the worksurface and a pair of lower edges on a lower surface of the worksurface (Figs. 2A-2F).
Regarding claim 3, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein at least portions of at least some of the lower edges are chamfered (Fig. 2F).
Regarding claim 6, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the greatest width of each of the branches is less than .53 inches ([0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the width of the node is greater than 1.0 inches ([0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table further comprising a utility cable (52) extending through the aperture (Figs. 2C).
Regarding claim 10, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table further comprising a pod (Hendershot: 12) fixedly connected to the utility cable (Hendershot: 84), wherein the pod is moveably supported on an upper surface of the worksurface, and wherein the pod is shaped and dimensioned to prevent the pod from passing through the branches or the node.
Regarding claim 12, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the branches and node are arranged in a T-shape (Hendershot: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the pod comprises a first pod (Hendershot: 12), and further comprising a second pod (Hendershot: 82) fixedly connected to the utility cable and disposed below the worksurface, wherein the second pod is shaped and dimensioned to prevent the pod from passing through the branches or the node.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirth in view of Hendershot and Brucha (US patent 10,638,833).
Regarding claim 9, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the utility cable comprises a USB-C cable ([0052]). Mirth, as modified, does not teach the cable connected to a power source mounted on the base. Brucha teaches a power source (506) mounted to a base. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirth, as previously modified, wherein the cable is connected to a power source mounted on the base in view of Brucha’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a power source.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirth in view of Hendershot and Bakker et al. (US patent application publication 2005/0268823) (hereinafter Bakker).
Regarding claim 14, Mirth, as modified, teaches the conference table as claimed. Mirth, as modified, does not teach a conference table wherein the base comprises a peripheral wall defining an interior space, an opening and a panel moveable between an open position wherein the interior space is accessible through the opening and a closed position wherein the panel is disposed over the opening. Bakker teaches a conference table wherein the base (14) comprises a peripheral wall defining an interior space (Fig. 4), an opening (Fig. 4) and a panel (24) moveable between an open position wherein the interior space is accessible through the opening and a closed position wherein the panel is disposed over the opening. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirth, as previously modified, wherein the base comprises a peripheral wall defining an interior space, an opening and a panel moveable between an open position wherein the interior space is accessible through the opening and a closed position wherein the panel is disposed over the opening in view of Bakker’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a storage location in the base as taught by Bakker.
Claim(s) 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirth in view of Hendershot, Bakker and Pierce et al. (US patent 5,231,562) (hereinafter Pierce).
Regarding claim 15, Mirth, as modified, teaches the conference table as claimed. Mirth, as modified, does not teach a conference table wherein the panel is pivotally mounted to the peripheral wall.
Pierce teaches a conference table wherein a panel (64) is pivotally mounted to a peripheral wall (Fig. 3) of a base. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mirth, as previously modified, wherein the panel is pivotally mounted to the peripheral wall in view of Pierce’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 16, Mirth, as modified, teaches a conference table wherein the panel comprises a bottom portion pivotally mounted to the peripheral wall about a horizontal axis (at 62, see Fig. 3 of Pierce).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 17 & 18 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.
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637