DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the IDS filed 10/16/2025 and the amendment filed 12/04/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 15-20 are pending;
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are currently amended; claims 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, and 20 are original; claims 7, 11, 12, and 14 have been cancelled;
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected herein.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that "[t]he Examiner's assertion that a 'frictionless surface' can somehow be illustrated is absurd… [because it] would be obvious to one of skill in the art that a surface can be frictionless without somehow illustrating this feature" (remarks, page 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's interpretation of the objections to the drawings directed to claims 9 and 20. As presented in the Office action mailed 09/23/2025, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.83(a), it is required that the drawings show the claimed "substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail [that] enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claims 9 and 20). There is absolutely no such claimed "substantially frictionless connection" depicted in the drawings. The focus of the objections is on such claimed "connection" instead of the alleged "frictionless surface" stated in the remarks.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Fahrion (US 4,659,048) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In particular, with respect to claim 1 as currently amended, Applicant argues that Fahrion fails to disclose "an upper rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface of the rail, and a lower rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface of the rail" (claim 1, lines 11-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Fahrion does disclose an upper rolling mechanism (64, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket (66, fig 3) and configured to roll along an upper surface of the rail (60, fig 3, see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-62), and a lower rolling mechanism (80, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 5, lines 1-4).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 10/16/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 features "The device support apparatus of claim 1, wherein a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 9, lines 1-3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 features "The support surface of claim 10, wherein a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 20, lines 1-3) 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.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 12/04/2025 is objected to because of the following informality:
Paragraph 0017, line 8, "40 is" appears to be --40 and is--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations in the claim: "The device support apparatus of claim 1, wherein a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 9, lines 1-3). Note that claim 1 is currently amended to recite "the device support apparatus comprising… an upper rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface of the rail, and a lower rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface of the rail" (claim 1, lines 2 and 11-14). Note that the specification filed 06/20/2024 states:
[0005] In some embodiments of the first aspect, the device may include an electronic device. Electrical cords of the electronic device may be passed through a channel formed in the arm. The channel may extend from a lower opening in a lower end of the arm that is positioned under the support surface and an upper opening in an upper end of the arm that is positioned above the support surface. The device bracket may be moveable relative to the arm to move the device relative to the arm. The device bracket may be coupled to an upper end of the arm. The moveable bracket may be coupled to a lower end of the arm. The moveable bracket may include at least one rolling mechanism that rolls along a surface of the rail. The at least one rolling mechanism may include at least one of a wheel and a ball bearing. A substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail may enable the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail.
[0007] In some embodiments of the second aspect, the support surface may include a table top. The slot may include a deformable material to seal the slot. The deformable material may deform to allow the arm to move through the slot. The device may include an electronic device. Electrical cords of the device may be passed through a channel formed in the arm. The channel may extend from a lower opening in a lower end of the arm that is positioned under the support surface and an upper opening in an upper end of the arm that is positioned above the support surface. The device bracket may be moveable relative to the arm to move the device relative to the arm. The device bracket may be coupled to an upper end of the arm. The moveable bracket may be coupled to a lower end of the arm. The moveable bracket may include at least one rolling mechanism that rolls along a surface of the rail. The at least one rolling mechanism may include at least one of a wheel and a ball bearing. A substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail may enable the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail.
[0022] Referring now to FIG. 6, the moveable bracket 36 includes at least one rolling mechanism 110 that rolls along a surface 112 of the rail 30. In the exemplary embodiment, the rolling mechanism 110 includes wheels 114 that are positioned above and below the rail 30. In some embodiments, the rolling mechanism 110 includes at least one ball bearing secured in the moveable bracket 36 and configured to roll along the surface 112 of the rail 30. It will be appreciated that, in some embodiments, the moveable bracket 36 includes any suitable rolling mechanism 110 for moving along the rail 30. In some embodiments, the device support apparatus 12 includes a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket 36 and the rail 30 to enable the moveable bracket 36 to move along the length 38 of the rail 30.
In other words, the specification filed 06/20/2024 does not disclose one embodiment of the device support apparatus comprising "an upper rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface of the rail, and a lower rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface of the rail" (claim 1, lines 11-14) and "a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail [that] enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 9, lines 1-3). Moreover, the drawings filed 06/20/2024 fail to show one embodiment of the device support apparatus comprising "an upper rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface of the rail, and a lower rolling mechanism coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface of the rail" (claim 1, lines 11-14) and "a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail [that] enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 9, lines 1-3). Therefore, the limitations "The device support apparatus of claim 1, wherein a substantially frictionless connection between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail" (claim 9, lines 1-3) are considered as new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 10, 13, and 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations "The device support apparatus of claim 2, wherein electrical cords of the electronic device are configured to pass through a channel formed in the arm" in claim 3 (lines 1 and 2) positively recite the "electronic device" and the components thereof (i.e., the "electrical cords") as required structures within the scope of claim 3, since the term "wherein" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "electronic device" and the components thereof (i.e., the "electrical cords") thereafter. However, claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, recites "The device support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device" where the "electronic device" is recited as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 2. The positive recitation of the "electronic device" in claim 3, which requires the functional recitation of the "electronic device" in claim 2, renders the scope of claim 3 indefinite. It Is not clear as to whether claim 3 is directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus" and the "electronic device" or directed to a subcombination of the "device support apparatus" adapted to be used with the "electronic device." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination or properly place the "electronic device" and the components thereof (i.e., the "electrical cords") in intended use consistently in claim 3. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "electronic device" and the components thereof (i.e., the "electrical cords") in claim 3, claim 3 is considered to be directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus" and the "electronic device" having the "electrical cords." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations "A table including a moveable device support apparatus, the table comprising: a slot… a rail… an arm… and a device bracket" in claim 10 (lines 1-9) are indefinite because they are confusingly worded. Note that the specification states
[0016] Referring to FIG. 1, a support surface 10 is embodied as a desk. It will be appreciated that in some embodiments the support surface is a table, a counter, a television stand, a work space, or the like. A device support apparatus 12 is coupled to the support surface 10 to support a device 14. In the exemplary embodiment, the device 14 is a computer monitor. It will be appreciated that is some embodiments, the device 14 is a picture or video display, such as an electronic picture frame, a monitor, or a television, or electronic equipment, such as music equipment, research equipment, scientific equipment, or the like.
In other words, Figure 1 shows a table (10) and a moveable device support apparatus (12) coupled to the table. Here in claim 10, the limitations "A table including a moveable device support apparatus" in lines 1 and 2 are acceptable, as Applicant considers the moveable device support apparatus (12) as a structural part of the claimed "table" (10, 12). However, it does not appear to make any sense to further recite that the claimed "table" (10, 12) comprising "a slot… a rail… an arm… and a device bracket" in lines 3-9, where the rail (30), the arm (50), and the device bracket (60), as disclosed, are structural components of the moveable device support apparatus (12). As such, the limitations "A table including a moveable device support apparatus, the table comprising: a slot… a rail… an arm… and a device bracket" in claim 10 (lines 1-9) are confusing, since it is not clear as to whether the claimed "table" requires "a moveable device support apparatus… a slot… a rail… an arm… and a device bracket" (i.e., five different structural components of the claimed "table") or, as disclosed, the claimed "table" requires "a moveable device support apparatus… [and] a slot" (i.e., two different structural components of the claimed "table"), wherein the moveable device support apparatus comprises "a rail… an arm… and a device bracket" (i.e., three different structural components of the claimed "moveable device support apparatus"). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "the bracket" in claim 10 (lines 12 and 13, two recitations) is indefinite because it is not clear as to whether it refers to the limitation "a moveable bracket" in claim 10 (line 5) or the limitation "a device bracket" in claim 10 (Line 9). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations "wherein an electrical cord of the device is configured to pass through a channel formed in the arm and an adaptor of the electrical cord is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket" in claim 10 (lines 11-13) positively recite the "device," the component of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord"), and the component of the "electrical cord" (i.e., the "adaptor") as required structures within the scope of claim 10, since the term "wherein" in line 11 in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "device" and the component of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord") thereafter whereas the terms "wherein… and" in lines 11 and 12 in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "electrical cord" and the component of the "electrical cord" (i.e., the "adaptor") thereafter. However, the limitations "wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device" in claim 10 (lines 9 and 10) functionally recites the "device" as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 10. The positive recitations of the "device," the component of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord"), and the component of the "electrical cord" (i.e., the "adaptor") in lines 11-13, following a functional recitation of the "device" in lines 9 and 10, renders the scope of claim 10 indefinite. It Is not clear as to whether claim 10 is directed to a combination of the "table" and the "device" or directed to a subcombination of the "table" adapted to be used with the "device." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination or properly place the "device," the component of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord"), and the component of the "electrical cord" (i.e., the "adaptor") in intended use consistently in claim 10. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "device," the component of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord"), and the component of the "electrical cord" (i.e., the "adaptor") in claim 10 (lines 11-13), claim 10 is considered to be directed to a combination of the "table" and the "device" having the "electrical cord" with the "adaptor." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "The support surface" (claim 13, line 1) in the claim. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "The support surface" in claim 15 (line 1, also note that the limitation "the support surface" is further recited in lines 2 and 3), claim 16 (line 1), claim 17 (line 1), claim 18 (line 1), and claim 20 (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations "The support surface of claim 10" are recited in claim 13 (line 1). Note that claim 10 does not recite any support surface. Instead, claim 10 recites "A table including a moveable device support apparatus, the table comprising" in lines 1 and 2. As such, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. For the purpose of examination, the limitations "The support surface of claim 10" are recited in claim 13 (line 1) are considered as --The table of claim 10--. Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitation "The support surface of claim 10" in claim 15 (line 1), claim 16 (line 1), claim 17 (line 1), claim 18 (line 1), and claim 20 (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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)(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, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a first interpretation.
Regarding claim 1, Fahrion, under the first interpretation, discloses a device support apparatus (see Figure 3) that is configured to be moveable relative to a support surface (20a, fig 3, see annotation below, the upper support surface of the top 20 of the table 18), the device support apparatus comprising: a rail (60, fig 3) configured to extend under the support surface (see Figure 3), a moveable bracket (66, fig 3) coupled to the rail and configured to move along a length of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), an arm (24, fig 3) extending from the rail (see Figure 3, via the guide roller 64, the slide 66, and the bearing 68), wherein the arm is configured to extend through a slot (22, fig 3) in the support surface from beneath the support surface to above the support surface and is configured to move along a length of the slot as the moveable bracket moves along the rail (see Figures 1 and 3, see col 3, lines 41-49, col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), a device bracket (26, fig 3) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 3), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device (30, fig 3), an upper rolling mechanism (64, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface (60a, fig 3, see annotation below, the upper surface of the guide rail 60) of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), and a lower rolling mechanism (80, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface (60b, fig 3, see annotation below, the lower surface of the guide rail 60) of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
[AltContent: textbox (60a – Upper Surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (20a – Support Surface)]
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (60b – Lower Surface)]
Regarding claim 6, wherein: the device bracket is coupled to an upper end of the arm (see Figure 3), and the moveable bracket is coupled to a lower end of the arm (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the upper rolling mechanism and the lower rolling mechanism each include a wheel (64, 80, fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a substantially frictionless connection (64, fig 3) between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a first interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427).
Regarding claim 2, Fahrion, under the first interpretation, discloses the device support apparatus, wherein the device bracket is configured to support an electronic device (32, fig 1).
Fahrion, under the first interpretation, does not explicitly the device support apparatus, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to the electronic device.
Leymann teaches a device support apparatus (see the only figure) comprising: a rail (13); a moveable bracket (10) coupled to the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39); an arm (9) extending from the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the carriage 10); and a device bracket (4) coupled to an end of the arm (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39); wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (1, see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the horizontal shaft 3 and the plate support 2, to which the electronic device 1 is mounted)
Fahrion and Leymann are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) to the device bracket (Fahrion: 26, fig 3) by mounting the electronic device to the supporting plate (Fahrion: 30, fig 3; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11), as taught by Leymann, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the electronic device of Fahrion from undesirably falling off from the supporting plate of Fahrion (a) when the user adjusted the position of the electronic device of Fahrion or (b) should someone accidentally bump into the electronic device of Fahrion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the first interpretation, and Leymann to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Accordingly, Fahrion, under the first interpretation and as modified by Leymann with respect to claim 2, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; the device bracket 26 of Fahrion is configured to couple to the electronic device 32 of Fahrion via the angled guide rails 92, 94 and the supporting plate 30 of Fahrion, to which the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted).
Claims 3 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a first interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427) and Shahrokhi (US 8,154,859 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Fahrion, under the first interpretation and as modified by Leymann with respect to claim 2, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation below, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24) is formed in the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3) and the electronic device is connected to a computer via cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (24a – Channel)]
Fahrion, under the first interpretation and as modified by Leymann with respect to claim 2, does not explicitly teach the device support apparatus, wherein electrical cords of the electronic device are configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm.
Shahrokhi teaches a device support apparatus (100, fig 1) comprising: a rail (104, fig 1), a moveable bracket (214, fig 2) coupled to the rail (see Figure 1), an arm (112, fig 1) extending from the rail (see Figure 1), a device bracket (114, fig 1) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 1), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (102, fig 1, via the adapter ribs 116), wherein electrical cords (118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device are configured to pass through a channel (112a, fig 2, see annotation below, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (112b, fig 2, see annotation below, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (112c, fig 2, see annotation below, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2).
[AltContent: textbox (112b – Lower Opening)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (112a – Channel)][AltContent: textbox (112c – Upper Opening)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
568
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
Shahrokhi is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above) formed in the arm (Fahrion: 24, fig 3) with a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), and form the cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56) as electrical cords (Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), as taught by Shahrokhi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the electronic device of Fahrion to perform various functions via electrical cords and further provide convenient and neat cable management to the electrical cords. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the first interpretation, Leymann, and Shahrokhi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Accordingly, Fahrion, under the first interpretation and as modified by Leymann and Shahrokhi with respect to claim 3, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein electrical cords (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device are configured to pass through a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 112a, fig 2, see annotation above, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned under the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned above the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Claims 10, 13, 15, and 17-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a second interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427), Shahrokhi (US 8,154,859 B2), and Lee (KR 20100012429 A).
Regarding claim 10, Fahrion, under the second interpretation, discloses a table (18, fig 1) including a moveable device support apparatus (see Figure 3), the table comprising: a slot (22, fig 3) extending along a length of the table (see Figures 1 and 3), a rail (60, fig 3) extending under the table (see Figure 3), a moveable bracket (66, fig 3) coupled to the rail and configured to move along a length of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), an arm (24, fig 3) extending from the rail (see Figure 3, via the guide roller 64, the slide 66, and the bearing 68), wherein the arm extends through the slot from beneath the table to above the table and moves along the length of the slot as the moveable bracket moves along the rail (see Figures 1 and 3, see col 3, lines 41-49, col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), and a device bracket (26, fig 3) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 3), wherein the device bracket is configured to support to a device (32, fig 1), wherein a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation below, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24) is formed in the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3) and the device is connected to a computer via cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (24a – Channel)]
Fahrion, under the second interpretation, does not disclose the table, (1) wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to the device; (2) wherein an electrical cord of the device is configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm; (3) wherein an adaptor of the electrical cord is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Leymann teaches a device support apparatus (see the only figure) comprising: a rail (13); a moveable bracket (10) coupled to the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39); an arm (9) extending from the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the carriage 10); and a device bracket (4) coupled to an end of the arm (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39); wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (1, see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the horizontal shaft 3 and the plate support 2, to which the electronic device 1 is mounted)
Fahrion and Leymann are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) to the device bracket (Fahrion: 26, fig 3) by mounting the device to the supporting plate (Fahrion: 30, fig 3; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11), as taught by Leymann, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the device of Fahrion from undesirably falling off from the supporting plate of Fahrion (a) when the user adjusted the position of the device of Fahrion or (b) should someone accidentally bump into the device of Fahrion.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Shahrokhi teaches a device support apparatus (100, fig 1) comprising: a rail (104, fig 1), a moveable bracket (214, fig 2) coupled to the rail (see Figure 1), an arm (112, fig 1) extending from the rail (see Figure 1), a device bracket (114, fig 1) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 1), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device (102, fig 1, via the adapter ribs 116), wherein electrical cords (118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the device are configured to pass through a channel (112a, fig 2, see annotation below, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (112b, fig 2, see annotation below, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (112c, fig 2, see annotation below, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2).
[AltContent: textbox (112b – Lower Opening)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (112a – Channel)][AltContent: textbox (112c – Upper Opening)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
568
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
Shahrokhi is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above) formed in the arm (Fahrion: 24, fig 3) with a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), and form the cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56) as electrical cords (Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), as taught by Shahrokhi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the device of Fahrion to perform various functions via electrical cords and further provide convenient and neat cable management to the electrical cords.
With respect to the missing limitations (3) above, Lee teaches a table (10', fig 5, with the wire holder 100 as shown in Figure 9) comprising: a moveable bracket (100, fig 9), wherein an adaptor (30, fig 5) of an electrical cord (30a, fig 5, see annotation below, the electrical cord of the electronic device 30b on the table 10) of an electronic device (30b, fig 5, see annotation below, the electronic device on the table 10) is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket (see Figures 5 and 9, see translation, the adaptor 30 is attached to the wire holder 100 and is configured to move with the wire holder 100).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (30b – Electronic Device)][AltContent: textbox (30a – Electrical Cord)]
[AltContent: connector]
Lee is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric cord (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) with an adaptor (Lee: 30, fig 5) configured to couple to the moveable bracket (Fahrion: 66, fig 3) and move with the moveable bracket (Fahrion: see Figure 3; Lee: see Figures 5 and 9, see translation), as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable an electronic device with an adaptor to be neatly arranged relative to the table of Fahrion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the second interpretation, Leymann, Shahrokhi, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Accordingly, Fahrion, under the second interpretation and as modified by Leymann, Shahrokhi, and Lee with respect to claim 10, teaches a table (Fahrion: 18, fig 1) including a moveable device support apparatus (Fahrion: see Figure 3), the table comprising: a slot (Fahrion: 22, fig 3) extending along a length of the table (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3), a rail (Fahrion: 60, fig 3) extending under the table (Fahrion: see Figure 3), a moveable bracket (Fahrion: 66, fig 3) coupled to the rail and configured to move along a length of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), an arm (Fahrion: 24, fig 3) extending from the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, via the guide roller 64, the slide 66, and the bearing 68), wherein the arm extends through the slot from beneath the table to above the table and moves along the length of the slot as the moveable bracket moves along the rail (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3, see col 3, lines 41-49, col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), and a device bracket (Fahrion: 26, fig 3) coupled to an end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; via the angled guide rails 92, 94 of Fahrion and the supporting plate 30 of Fahrion, to which the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted), wherein an electrical cord (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the device is configured to pass through a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 112a, fig 2, see annotation above, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2) and an adaptor (Lee: 30, fig 5) of the electrical cord is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket (Fahrion: see Figure 3; Lee: see Figures 5 and 9, see translation).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; via the angled guide rails 92, 94 of Fahrion and the supporting plate 30 of Fahrion, to which the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned under the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned above the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, wherein: the device bracket is coupled to an upper end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3), and the moveable bracket is coupled to a lower end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the moveable bracket includes at least one rolling mechanism (Fahrion: 64, fig 3) that is configured to roll along a surface of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the at least one rolling mechanism includes a wheel (Fahrion: 64, fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, wherein a substantially frictionless connection (Fahrion: 64, fig 3) between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a third interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427).
Regarding claim 1, Fahrion, under the third interpretation, discloses a device support apparatus (see Figure 3) that is configured to be moveable relative to a support surface (20a, fig 3, see annotation below, the upper support surface of the top 20 of the table 18), the device support apparatus comprising: a rail (60, fig 3) configured to extend under the support surface (see Figure 3), a moveable bracket (66, fig 3) coupled to the rail and configured to move along a length of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), an arm (24, fig 3) extending from the rail (see Figure 3, via the guide roller 64, the slide 66, and the bearing 68), wherein the arm is configured to extend through a slot (22, fig 3) in the support surface from beneath the support surface to above the support surface and is configured to move along a length of the slot as the moveable bracket moves along the rail (see Figures 1 and 3, see col 3, lines 41-49, col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), a device bracket (30, fig 3) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 3, via the angled guide rails 92, 94 and the base plate 26), wherein the device bracket is configured to support a device (32, fig 1), an upper rolling mechanism (64, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along an upper surface (60a, fig 3, see annotation below, the upper surface of the guide rail 60) of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), and a lower rolling mechanism (80, fig 3) coupled to the moveable bracket and configured to roll along a lower surface (60b, fig 3, see annotation below, the lower surface of the guide rail 60) of the rail (see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (60a – Upper Surface)][AltContent: textbox (20a – Support Surface)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (60b – Lower Surface)]
Fahrion, under the third interpretation, does not disclose the device support apparatus, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to the device.
Leymann teaches a device support apparatus (see the only figure) comprising: a rail (13); a moveable bracket (10) coupled to the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39); an arm (9) extending from the rail (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the carriage 10); and a device bracket (2) coupled to an end of the arm (see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, via the horizontal shaft 3 and the auxiliary support 4); wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device (1, see the only figure, see col 2, lines 8-39, the electronic device 1 is mounted to the plate support 2).
Fahrion and Leymann are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) to the device bracket (Fahrion: 30, fig 3) by mounting the device to the device bracket (Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11), as taught by Leymann, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the device of Fahrion from undesirably falling off from the supporting plate of Fahrion (a) when the user adjusted the position of the device of Fahrion or (b) should someone accidentally bump into the device of Fahrion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the third interpretation, and Leymann to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted to the device bracket 30 of Fahrion).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the device bracket is moveable relative to the arm to move the device relative to the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 3, lines 34-68, col 4, lines 1 and 2, col 5, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 6, wherein: the device bracket is coupled to an upper end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3, via the angled guide rails 92, 94 and the base plate 26), and the moveable bracket is coupled to a lower end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the upper rolling mechanism and the lower rolling mechanism each include a wheel (Fahrion: 64, 80, fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a substantially frictionless connection (Fahrion: 64, fig 3) between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
Claims 3 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a third interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427) and Shahrokhi (US 8,154,859 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Fahrion, under the third interpretation and as modified by Leymann with respect to claim 1, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation below, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24) is formed in the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3) and the electronic device is connected to a computer via cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (24a – Channel)]
Fahrion, under the third interpretation and as modified by Leymann with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the device support apparatus, wherein electrical cords of the electronic device are configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm.
Shahrokhi teaches a device support apparatus (100, fig 1) comprising: a rail (104, fig 1), a moveable bracket (214, fig 2) coupled to the rail (see Figure 1), an arm (112, fig 1) extending from the rail (see Figure 1), a device bracket (114, fig 1) coupled to an end of the arm (see Figure 1), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (102, fig 1, via the adapter ribs 116), wherein electrical cords (118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device are configured to pass through a channel (112a, fig 2, see annotation below, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (112b, fig 2, see annotation below, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (112c, fig 2, see annotation below, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (see Figures 1 and 2).
[AltContent: textbox (112b – Lower Opening)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (112a – Channel)][AltContent: textbox (112c – Upper Opening)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
568
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
Shahrokhi is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above) formed in the arm (Fahrion: 24, fig 3) with a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), and form the cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56) as electrical cords (Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) configured to pass through the channel formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2), as taught by Shahrokhi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the electronic device of Fahrion to perform various functions via electrical cords and further provide convenient and neat cable management to the electrical cords. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the third interpretation, Leymann, and Shahrokhi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Accordingly, Fahrion, under the third interpretation and as modified by Leymann and Shahrokhi with respect to claim 3, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein electrical cords (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the electronic device are configured to pass through a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24, as modified by, 112a, fig 2, see annotation above, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned under the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned above the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Claims 10, 13, and 15-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048), under a third interpretation, in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427), Shahrokhi (US 8,154,859 B2), and Lee (KR 20100012429 A).
Regarding claim 10, Fahrion, under the third interpretation and as modified by Leymann and Shahrokhi (see above discussions with respect to claims 1 and 3 based on the third interpretation of Fahrion), teaches a table (Fahrion: 18, fig 1) including a moveable device support apparatus (Fahrion: see Figure 3), the table comprising: a slot (Fahrion: 22, fig 3) extending along a length of the table (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3), a rail (Fahrion: 60, fig 3) extending under the table (Fahrion: see Figure 3), a moveable bracket (Fahrion: 66, fig 3) coupled to the rail and configured to move along a length of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), an arm (Fahrion: 24, fig 3) extending from the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, via the guide roller 64, the slide 66, and the bearing 68), wherein the arm extends through the slot from beneath the table to above the table and moves along the length of the slot as the moveable bracket moves along the rail (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3, see col 3, lines 41-49, col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4), and a device bracket (Fahrion: 30, fig 3) coupled to an end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3, via the angled guide rails 92, 94 and the base plate 26), wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted to the device bracket 30 of Fahrion), wherein an electrical cord (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) of the device is configured to pass through a channel (Fahrion: 24a, fig 3, see annotation above, see col 5, lines 5-13, the passage of the hollow shaft 24, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 112a, fig 2, see annotation above, the inner channel of the suspension tube 112) formed in the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2).
Fahrion, under the third interpretation and as modified by Leymann and Shahrokhi (see above discussions with respect to claims 1 and 3 based on the third interpretation of Fahrion), does not teach the table, wherein an adaptor of the electrical cord is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket.
Lee teaches a table (10', fig 5, with the wire holder 100 as shown in Figure 9) comprising: a moveable bracket (100, fig 9), wherein an adaptor (30, fig 5) of an electrical cord (30a, fig 5, see annotation below, the electrical cord of the electronic device 30b on the table 10) of an electronic device (30b, fig 5, see annotation below, the electronic device on the table 10) is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the bracket (see Figures 5 and 9, see translation, the adaptor 30 is attached to the wire holder 100 and is configured to move with the wire holder 100).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (30b – Electronic Device)][AltContent: textbox (30a – Electrical Cord)]
[AltContent: connector]
Lee is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric cord (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56, as modified by, Shahrokhi: 118, fig 1, col 3, lines 60-67, col 4, lines 1-6 and 31-34, col 5, lines 9-25) with an adaptor (Lee: 30, fig 5) configured to couple to the moveable bracket (Fahrion: 66, fig 3) and move with the moveable bracket (Fahrion: see Figure 3; Lee: see Figures 5 and 9, see translation), as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable an electronic device with an adaptor to be neatly arranged relative to the table of Fahrion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, under the third interpretation, Leymann, Shahrokhi, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to an electronic device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1; Leymann: see col 3, lines 9-11; the electronic device 32 of Fahrion is mounted to the device bracket 30 of Fahrion).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the channel extends from a lower opening (Shahrokhi: 112b, fig 2, see annotation above, the lower opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in a lower end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned under the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) and an upper opening (Shahrokhi: 112c, fig 2, see annotation above, the upper opening of the channel 112a of the suspension tube 112) in an upper end of the arm (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3) that is configured to be positioned above the support surface (Shahrokhi: see Figures 1 and 2; Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the device bracket is moveable relative to the arm to move the device relative to the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 3, lines 34-68, col 4, lines 1 and 2, col 5, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 17, wherein: the device bracket is coupled to an upper end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3, via the angled guide rails 92, 94 and the base plate 26), and the moveable bracket is coupled to a lower end of the arm (Fahrion: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the moveable bracket includes at least one rolling mechanism (Fahrion: 64, fig 3) that is configured to roll along a surface of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the at least one rolling mechanism includes a wheel (Fahrion: 64, fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, wherein a substantially frictionless connection (Fahrion: 64, fig 3) between the moveable bracket and the rail enables the moveable bracket to move along the length of the rail (Fahrion: see Figure 3, see col 4, lines 52-68, col 5, lines 1-4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631