DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in reply to (i) the response filed 05/12/2026, which has been entered, (ii) the RCE filed 06/23/2026, which has been entered, and (iii) the supplemental response filed 07/14/2026, which has not been entered.
Status of Claims
The claims filed 05/12/2026 have been entered and are being examined on the merits herein with the following status:
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and 15-19 are pending;
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, and 15-19 are currently amended; claims 2, 4, and 8 were previously presented; claims 5 and 6 are original; claims 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 20 have been cancelled;
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and 15-19 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Supplemental Response
With respect to the supplemental response filed 07/14/2026, Applicant is hereby directed to MPEP § 714.03(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.111, which is duplicated below.
37 CFR 1.111 Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action.
(a)
(1) If the Office action after the first examination (§ 1.104) is adverse in any respect, the applicant or patent owner, if he or she persists in his or her application for a patent or reexamination proceeding, must reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without amendment. See §§ 1.135 and 1.136 for time for reply to avoid abandonment.
(2) Supplemental replies.
(i) A reply that is supplemental to a reply that is in compliance with § 1.111(b) will not be entered as a matter of right except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. The Office may enter a supplemental reply if the supplemental reply is clearly limited to:
(A) Cancellation of a claim(s);
(B) Adoption of the examiner suggestion(s);
(C) Placement of the application in condition for allowance;
(D) Reply to an Office requirement made after the first reply was filed;
(E) Correction of informalities (e.g., typographical errors); or
(F) Simplification of issues for appeal.
(ii) A supplemental reply will be entered if the supplemental reply is filed within the period during which action by the Office is suspended under § 1.103(a) or (c).
(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
(c) In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The supplemental response filed 07/14/2026 proposes new claims 21-29 and further fails to meet any of the limited conditions for entry as specified in 37 C.F.R. § 1.111. Thus, the supplemental response filed 07/14/2026 has not been entered because supplemental responses are not entered as a matter of right except as provided in 37 CFR § 1.111(a)(2)(ii). As such, the claims filed 05/12/2026, which have been entered by the RCE filed 06/23/2026, are being examined on the merits herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is hereby directed to the detailed rejections below in the current Office action as to how the amended claims are met by the prior art of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 4, "and" appears to be unnecessary and it is recommended that "and" be removed.
Claim 10, line 11, "and adaptor" appears to be --and an adaptor--.
Claims 13 and 15-19, line 1, it is recommended that "The apparatus" be changed to --The moveable device support apparatus-- for consistency. See claim 10, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble of claim 1, "[a] device support apparatus that is configured to be moveable relative to a support surface" (lines 1 and 2), functionally recites the "support surface" as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1, since the language "configured to" in the instant case introduces a functional recitation of the "support surface" thereafter. Also, the limitations "wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device having an adaptor" (lines 8 and 9) in the body of claim 1 functionally recite the "device" and the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor") as functional elements that are not required structures within the scope of claim 1, since the language "configured to" in the instant case introduces a functional recitation of the "device" and the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor") thereafter. However, the limitations "wherein the adaptor of the device is configured to couple to the moveable bracket and move with the moveable bracket underneath the support surface when the device bracket is moved above the support surface" (lines 14-16) in the body of claim 1 positively recite the "device," the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor"), and the "support surface" as required structures within the scope of claim 1, since the language "wherein" in the instant case introduces positive recitations of the "device" and the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor") thereafter whereas the language "when the device bracket is moved above" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "support surface" thereafter. The positive recitations of the "device," the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor"), and the "support surface" (lines 14-16) in the body of claim 1, following the functional recitations of the "device," the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor"), and the "support surface" (lines 1, 2, 8, and 9) in the body of claim 1, render the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 1 is directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus," the "device," and the "support surface" or directed to a subcombination of the "device support apparatus" adapted to be used with the "device" and the "support surface." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble or properly place the "device," the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor"), and the "support surface" in intended use consistently throughout claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "device," the component of the "device" (e.g., the "adaptor"), and the "support surface" (lines 14-16) in the body of claim 1, claim 1 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus," the "device," and the "support surface." Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitations "wherein electrical cords of the device are configured to pass through a channel formed in the arm" in claim 3 (lines 1 and 2, wherein the "device" and the components of the "device," i.e., the "electrical cords," are positively recited in the body of claim 3 as required structures within the scope of claim 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble of claim 10, "[a] moveable device support apparatus for a table having a slot extending along a length of the table" (lines 1 and 2), functionally recites the "table" and the components of the "table" (e.g., the "slot" and the "length") as functional elements that are not required structures within the scope of claim 10, since the language "for" in the instant case introduces functional recitations of the "table" and the components of the "table" (e.g., the "slot" and the "length") thereafter. Also, the limitations "wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to a device having an electrical cord and adaptor" (lines 10 and 11) in the body of claim 10 functionally recite the "device" and the components of the "device" (e.g., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") as functional elements that are not required structures within the scope of claim 10, since the language "configured to" in the instant case introduces a functional recitation of the "device" and the components of the "device" (e.g., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") thereafter. However, the limitations "a rail extending under the table… wherein the arm extends through the slot from beneath the table to above the table and moves along the length of the slot… wherein the electrical cord of the device is configured to pass through a channel formed in the arm and wherein the adaptor of the device is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the moveable bracket underneath the table when the device bracket is moved above the table" (lines 4-16) in the body of claim 10 positively recite the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), the component of the "slot" (e.g., the "length"), the "device," and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") as required structures within the scope of claim 10, since the language "extending under" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "table" thereafter, the language "extends through" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), and the component of the "slot" (e.g., the "length") thereafter, the language "wherein" in the instant case introduces positive recitations of the "device" and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") thereafter, and the language "when the device bracket is moved above" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation of the "table" thereafter. The positive recitations of the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), the component of the "slot" (e.g., the "length"), the "device," and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") (lines 4-16) in the body of claim 10, following the functional recitations of the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), the "device," and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") (lines 1, 2, 10, and 11) in the body of claim 10, render the scope of claim 10 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 10 is directed to a combination of the "moveable device support apparatus," the "table," and the "device" or directed to a subcombination of the "moveable device support apparatus" adapted to be used with the "table" and the "device." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble or properly place the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), the component of the "slot" (e.g., the "length"), the "device," and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") in intended use consistently throughout claim 10. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "table," the component of the "table" (e.g., the "slot"), the component of the "slot" (e.g., the "length"), the "device," and the components of the "device" (i.e., the "electrical cord" and the "adaptor") (lines 4-16) in the body of claim 10, claim 10 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "moveable device support apparatus," the "table," and the "device." Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitations "wherein the channel extends 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" in claim 15 (lines 1-3, the "support surface" is positively recited in the body of claim 15 as a required structure within the scope of claim 15). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the length" (line 8) in the claim, wherein the limitation "the length" is a part of the limitation "the length of the slot" in line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "the bracket" in lines 14 and 15 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "the bracket" in lines 14 and 15 refers to the limitation "a moveable bracket" in line 5 or the limitation "a device bracket" in line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the support surface" (line 2) in the claim. Note that the limitation "the support surface" is further recited in line 3 and should also be amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 13, and 16-19 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048) in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427) and Lee (KR 20100012429 A)1.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant is reminded that, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above in the current Office action, claim 1 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus," the "device," and the "support surface."
Fahrion 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 side 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: textbox (60a – Upper Surface)][AltContent: textbox (60b – Lower Surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (20a – Support Surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
Fahrion does not disclose the device support apparatus, (1) wherein the device bracket is configured to couple to the device; (2) wherein the device has an adaptor, wherein the adaptor of the device is configured to couple to the moveable bracket and move with the moveable bracket underneath the support surface when the device bracket is moved above the support surface.
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 (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).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Lee teaches a device support apparatus (100, fig 7, hanging on the desk 10' as shown in Figure 5 and holding the adaptor 30 as shown in Figure 5, see translation) that is configured to be moveable relative to a support surface (10a, fig 5, see annotation, the support surface on which the wire holder 100 is hung), the device support apparatus comprising: a moveable bracket (110, 120, 130, fig 7), an arm (116b, fig 7); and a device bracket (140, 150, 160, fig 7) coupled to the arm, wherein an adaptor (30, fig 5) of a device (30a, fig 5, see annotation below, the electronic device on the desk 10') is configured to couple to the moveable bracket and move with the moveable bracket underneath the support surface when the device bracket is moved above the support surface (see Figures 5 and 7, see translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (10a – Support Surface)]
[AltContent: textbox (30b – Electrical Cord)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (30a – Device)]
PNG
media_image4.png
478
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[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 device (Fahrion: 32, fig 1) with an adaptor (Lee: 30, fig 5), wherein the adaptor of the device is configured to couple to the moveable bracket (Fahrion: 66, fig 3) and move with the moveable bracket underneath the support surface (Fahrion: 20a, fig 3, see annotation) when the device bracket (Fahrion: 30, fig 3) is moved above the support surface (Fahrion: see Figure 3; Lee: see Figures 5 and 7, 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 side table of Fahrion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fahrion, Leymann, and Lee 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, as modified, 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).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 13, and 15-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrion (US 4,659,048) in view of Leymann (US 4,619,427), Lee (KR 20100012429 A), and Shahrokhi (US 8,154,859 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is reminded that, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above in the current Office action, claim 3 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "device support apparatus," the "device," and the "support surface."
Fahrion, as modified by Leymann and Lee with respect to claim 1, teaches the device support apparatus, wherein the device comprises cables (Fahrion: col 3, lines 50-56), 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (24a – Channel)]
Fahrion, as modified by Leymann and Lee with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the device support apparatus, wherein electrical cords of the 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_image5.png
568
918
media_image5.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, Leymann, Lee, and Shahrokhi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Accordingly, Fahrion, as modified by Leymann, Lee, 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 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).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is reminded that, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above in the current Office action, claim 10 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "moveable device support apparatus," the "table," and the "device."
Fahrion, as modified by Leymann, Lee, and Shahrokhi (see above discussions with respect to claims 1 and 3), teaches a moveable device support apparatus (Fahrion: see Figure 3) for a table (Fahrion: 18, fig 1) having a slot (Fahrion: 22, fig 3) extending along a length of the table (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3), the moveable device support apparatus comprising: 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, as modified, is mounted to the device bracket 30 of Fahrion) having 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) and adaptor (Lee: 30, fig 5), wherein the electrical cord 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, wherein the adaptor of the device is configured to couple to the bracket and move with the moveable bracket underneath the table when the device bracket is moved above the table (Fahrion: see Figures 1 and 3; Lee: see Figures 5 and 7, see translation; after modification, the adaptor 30 of Lee is coupled to the moveable bracket 66 of Fahrion to move with the moveable bracket 66 of Fahrion underneath the side table 18 of Fahrion when the device bracket 30 of Fahrion is moved above the side table 18 of Fahrion).
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, as modified, 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).
Conclusion
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
1 A copy of Lee, including a translation, was attached to the Office action mailed 03/23/2026.
Prosecution Insights