DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 6/26/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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 1-10 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 limitation “the reinforcing ribs extend transversely” in the last line is indefinite because it is not clear with respect to what structure the reinforcing ribs are “transverse.” In order to further prosecution, the ribs are interpreted to extend transverse to a longitudinal axis of the table structure. Claims 2-10 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the reinforcing plates extend longitudinally” in the last lines is indefinite because it is not clear with respect to what structure the reinforcing plates are “longitudinal.” In order to further prosecution, the plates are interpreted to extend longitudinal with respect to a longitudinal axis.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettersson (US 2019/0255816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pettersson discloses a lightweight table structure comprising: a frame (the top and bottom 9 and the left and right 11 – Fig. 1); a top panel (3 – Fig. 1) mounted to the frame; and a bottom panel (5 – Fig. 1) mounted on a bottom of the frame: wherein the frame has a hollow interior (see Fig. 2, the interior of the frame is clearly hollow); the frame includes a front panel (the bottom 9 – Fig. 1), a rear panel (the top 9 – Fig. 1), a left panel (the left 11 – Fig. 1), and a right panel (the right 11 – Fig. 1) which are combined together (see Fig. 1); the frame further includes multiple reinforcing ribs (15 – Fig. 2) mounted between the front panel, the rear panel, the left panel, and the right panel (see Fig. 2); the reinforcing ribs are spaced and arranged in parallel (see Fig. 2); and the reinforcing ribs extend transversely (since the bottom and top 9 are interpreted to be the front and the back panels, the longitudinal axis is interpreted to extend from the top to the bottom 9 and as is clear from Fig. 2, 15 extends transversely to the longitudinal axis).
Pettersson further discloses:
Claim 10, a decorative laminate sheet on the top panel by a laminating process (para. 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US 2019/0255816 A1) in view of Ryther (US 5157892).
Regarding claim 2, Pettersson discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Pettersson does not disclose multiple reinforcing plates.
Ryther discloses a similar structure comprising a top panel (22 – Fig. 2), a bottom panel (20 – Fig. 2), reinforcing ribs (14 – Fig. 2), and further comprising multiple reinforcing plates (16 – Fig. 2) mounted between a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side of the structure (see Fig. 2); wherein the reinforcing plates are spaced and arranged in parallel (see Fig. 2); and the reinforcing plates extend longitudinally (longitudinal is interpreted to be the left to right direction as seen in Fig. 2) in order to provide longitudinal strength, thereby improving the durability of the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the structure of Pettersson to include reinforcing ribs as taught by Ryther in order to improve the durability of the structure.
Pettersson, as modified by Ryther, further teaches:
Claim 3, the front panel, the rear panel, the left panel, the right panel, the reinforcing ribs, the reinforcing plates, the top panel, and the bottom panel are made of medium density fiberboard (MDF) (para. 0055, Pettersson; note that although Pettersson discloses using HDF, the HDF is made using MDF, hence the material of Pettersson comprises MDF).
Claim 4, the left panel, the right panel, the top panel, and the bottom panel are made of a medium density fiberboard (MDF) (para. 0055, Pettersson; note that although Pettersson discloses using HDF, the HDF is mode using MDF, hence the material of Pettersson comprises MDF); and the reinforcing ribs and the reinforcing plates are made of a recycled sheet plate (as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Pettersson and Fig. 2 of Ryther, both the ribs and the plates are in the form of a sheet, hence they are interpreted to be made of a sheet plate; furthermore, note that the term “recycled” is a product by process limitation, in this case the ribs and plates may be made from a recycled material).
Claim 7, each of the reinforcing plates (16 – Fig. 2, Ryther) is provided with multiple fitting grooves (40 – Fig. 2, Ryther) allowing insertion of the reinforcing ribs (see Fig. 2 of Ryther where the ribs 14, analogous to the ribs of Pettersson, fit in 40).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US 2019/0255816 A1) in view of Yee (US 2006/0214493 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pettersson discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Pettersson does not disclose that each of the left panel and the right panel is provided with multiple fitting grooves.
Yee teaches a similar structure comprising a left panel (the left 144 – Fig. 13) and a right panel (the right 144 – Fig. 13), wherein each of the left panel and the right panel is provided with multiple fitting grooves (138 – Fig. 13) allowing insertion of reinforcing ribs (148 – Fig. 2; para. 0076); and the fitting grooves are arranged symmetrically between the left panel and the right panel (see Fig. 13, although 138 is not seen in the right 144, since 148 are straight, the 138 in the right 144 must be opposite and hence symmetric to the 138 in the left 144). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Yee, would have recognized that the fitting grooves of Yee provide the benefit over glue as taught by Pettersson of ensuring the ribs are lined up in the proper position relative to the panels, thereby improving the consistency of quality of making the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the left and right panels of Pettersson to include multiple fitting grooves as taught by Yee in order to improve the consistency of quality of making the structure.
Regarding claim 6, Pettersson discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 under an alternative interpretation of Pettersson in which the front panel is interpreted to be (the left 11 – Fig. 1), the rear panel is interpreted to be (the right 11 – Fig. 1), the left panel is interpreted to be (the bottom 9 – Fig. 1), and the right panel is interpreted to be (the top 9 – Fig. 1), wherein the ribs are interpreted to extend transverse to an axis running from the bottom 9 to the top 9.
However, Pettersson does not disclose that each of the front panel and the rear panel is provided with multiple fitting grooves.
Yee teaches a similar structure comprising a front panel (the left 144 – Fig. 13) and a right panel (the right panel 144 – Fig. 13), wherein each of the front panel and the rear panel is provided with multiple fitting grooves (138 – Fig. 13) allowing insertion of reinforcing ribs (148 – Fig. 2, para. 0076); and the fitting grooves are arranged symmetrically between the front panel and the rear panel (see Fig. 13, although 138 is not seen in the right 144, since 148 are straight, the 138 in the right 144 must be opposite and hence symmetric to the 138 in the left 144). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Yee, would have recognized that the fitting grooves of Yee provide the benefit over glue as taught by Pettersson of ensuring the ribs are lined up in the proper position relative to the panels, thereby improving the consistency of quality of making the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the front and rear panels of Pettersson to include multiple fitting grooves as taught by Yee in order to improve the consistency of quality of making the structure.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson (US 2019/0255816 A1) in view of Iyewarun (US 8191881 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Pettersson discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Pettersson does not disclose the front panel is provided with a guide bevel and arc angle.
Iyewarun discloses a similar structure, wherein a front panel (any of the sides of 20 – Fig. 1) is provided with a guide bevel and arc angle (22 – Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Iyewarun would have recognized that a guide bevel and arc angle reduce the sharpness of edges, thereby improving safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the front panel of Pettersson to include a guide bevel and arc angle as taught by Iyewarun in order to improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 8, Pettersson does not teach multiple holes for mounting multiple insert nuts in each of the front panel, rear panel, left panel, right panel, and most importantly the reinforcing plates. While mounting holes in a front, rear, left and right panel are known, there is no known reference that includes mounting holes in each of the panels and also reinforcing plates. Due to this, it is not clear how the combination of Pettersson and Ryther may be modified to include this feature without engaging in impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights