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 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.
Claims 12 & 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 claims 12 & 20, the term “pulley” is used by the claim to mean “pin,” while the accepted meaning is “a wheel used to transmit power by means of a band, belt, cord, rope, or chain passing over its rim.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term.
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 1-2 & 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549) in view of Cheng (CN2467363) & Lock (4927127).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a height-adjustable desk, comprising: a base (10); a desk board assembly (2) above the base; a support arm assembly (9), which is a rhombic linkage mechanism, wherein, the support arm assembly comprises a first arm segment (23), a second arm segment (20), a third arm segment (27) and a fourth arm segment (15), both a bottom end of the first arm segment and a bottom end of the second arm segment rotatably connect with the base (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), both a top end of the third arm segment and a top end of the fourth arm segment rotatably connect with the desk board assembly (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), a top end of the first arm segment rotatably connects with a bottom end of the third arm segment (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), a top end of the second arm segment rotatably connects with a bottom end of the fourth arm segment (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13); and at least one supporter (1, 3-5, 7, 11, 13, 29). Huang fail(s) to teach gears between the first, second, third & fourth arm segments; and a supporter that can extend & retract. However, Cheng teaches first gears (23) that connect the bottom ends of first & second arm segments in an engaging transmission manner (Figs. 1-2), and second gears (11) that connect the top ends of the third & fourth arm segments in an engaging transmission manner (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add first & second gears, as taught by Cheng, to the rhombic linkage mechanism of Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent lateral swaying or wobbling of the arm segments, thereby increasing the stability of the desk (as suggested by p. 2 of Cheng’s written description). Additionally, Lock teaches a supporter (5) having one end connecting with a base and another end connecting with a desk board assembly (col. 7, lines 5-7 & Fig. 4a), wherein, the supporter is capable of extending and retracting to adjust a distance between the desk board assembly and the base in a vertical direction (col. 5, lines 49-57), and configured to support the desk board assembly to maintain the distance between the desk board assembly and the base in the vertical direction (implied by col. 5, lines 49-50, which states that the supporter (5) effects “vertical location of the table top” along with “raising, lowering”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a supporter, as taught by Lock, for the supporter of Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the manual effort required to raise, lower, & support the desk board assembly, because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known support means for another.
Regarding claim 2, Huang as modified teaches a supporter (5 of Lock) that inclines relative to a vertical direction (as in Fig. 4a of Lock), a top end of the supporter rotatably (as in Fig. 4a-4c of Lock) connects with the desk board assembly (2 of Huang), and a bottom end of the at least one supporter rotatably connects (as in Fig. 4a-4c of Lock) with the base (10 of Huang).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches a first arm segment (23) and the second arm segment (20) that are arranged along a first horizontal direction (Fig. 1), and a second horizontal direction is perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 2); and wherein a plurality of support arm assemblies (i.e., 23, 20, 27, & 15; and 24, 18, 26, & 16) are arranged at intervals along the second horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches a height-adjustable desk that further comprises at least one connecting bar (22, 19, 25, & 17), and at least one group of two first arm segments (23-24), two second arm segments (20 & 18), two third arm segments (27 & 26) and two fourth arm segments (15-16) of two adjacent support arm assemblies connects with the at least one connecting bar (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Lock teaches at least one supporter (5) that is an electrically driven telescopic rod or a mechanically driven telescopic rod (col. 5, lines 49-57).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363) & Lock (4927127) in view of Alsten (1349801).
Regarding claim 3, Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a support arm assembly (9 of Huang) comprising a bottom gear seat (21 of Huang) at a joint of the first arm segment (23 of Huang) and the second arm segment (20 of Huang), so that both the bottom end of the first arm segment and the bottom end of the second arm segment rotatably connect with the base through the bottom gear seat (Fig. 1-2 of Huang). Huang as modified fail(s) to teach limit posts & arc chutes. However, Alsten teaches stabilizing means comprising first & second limit posts (16) respectively provided on the bottom ends of first & second arm segments (15), and first & second arc chutes (17) provided on a bottom gear seat (12) for accommodating the first & second limit posts to slide respectively (Fig. 1 & p. 1, lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add stabilizing means, as taught by Alsten, to the support arm assembly of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased lateral stability (as suggested by p. 1, lines 40-44 of Alsten).
Regarding claim 4, Huang as modified teaches a first arm segment (23 of Huang) and the second arm segment (20 of Huang) that are arranged along a first horizontal direction (Figs. 1-2 of Huang), the third arm segment (27 of Huang) and the fourth arm segment (15 of Huang) that are arranged along the first horizontal direction (Figs. 1-2 of Huang), the first arm segment and the second arm segment are symmetrically arranged based on a symmetry axis extending in the vertical direction (Fig. 1 of Huang), and the third arm segment and the fourth arm segment are symmetrically arranged based on the symmetry axis (Fig. 1 of Huang); and wherein in the first horizontal direction, the top end of the at least one supporter and the bottom end of the at least one supporter (5 of Lock) are respectively located at different sides of the symmetry axis (as in Fig. 4a of Lock).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), Lock (4927127) & Alsten (1349801) in view of Flaherty (20150250303). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a desk board assembly (2 of Huang) comprising a desk board (2 of Huang); but fail(s) to teach a top frame. However, Flaherty teaches the inclusion, in a desk board assembly (10, 110), of a top frame (110) to which arm segments (30) rotatably connect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a top frame, as taught by Flaherty, to the desk board assembly of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate easier assembly & transportation of the elevation working platform as well as replacement of the desk board (as suggested by par. 73 of Flaherty). Hence, Huang as modified would teach a desk board assembly (2 of Huang & 110 of Flaherty) that comprises a top frame (110 of Flaherty) and a desk board (2 of Huang), both the third arm segment (27 of Huang) and the fourth arm segment (15 of Huang) rotatably connect with the top frame (as in Fig. 22 of Flaherty), the desk board fixedly connects with a top of the top frame (as in Fig. 22 of Flaherty), the top frame comprises a first end (i.e., right end of 110 of Flaherty), the top end of the at least one supporter (5 of Lock) locates between the first end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction (as in Fig. 4a of Lock), a distance between the first end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L1 (as in Fig. 24 of Flaherty), and a distance between the top end of the at least one supporter and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L2 (as in Fig. 4a of Lock); and wherein, the base (10 of Huang) comprises a second end (i.e., left end of 10 of Huang), the second end and the first end respectively locate at different sides of the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction (as in Fig. 1 of Huang & Fig. 24 of Flaherty), the bottom end of the at least one supporter locates between the second end and the symmetry axis (as in Fig. 4a of Lock), a distance between the second end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L3 (as in Fig. 1 of Huang), and a distance between the bottom end of the at least one supporter and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L4 (as in Fig. 4a of Lock). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the desk of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making L2 half of L1, and making L4 half of L3, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the desk (e.g., intended use of the workstation, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), Lock (4927127), Alsten (1349801) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Elkuch (4741512). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including the first arm segment (23 of Huang) and the second arm segment (20 of Huang) that are arranged along the first horizontal direction, and a second horizontal direction is perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (Fig. 2 of Huang); and wherein a top end of the supporter rotatably (as in Fig. 4a-4c of Lock) connects with the desk board assembly (2 of Huang & 110 of Flaherty), and a bottom end of the at least one supporter rotatably connects (as in Fig. 4a-4c of Lock) with the base (10 of Huang), the top end and the bottom end of the at least one supporter are arranged at intervals along the first horizontal direction (as in Fig. 4a of Lock). Huang as modified fail(s) to teach a plurality of supporters. However, Elkuch teaches two supporters (13) arranged at intervals along a second horizontal direction; wherein the two supporters are parallel to each other (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second, identical supporter to the structure of Huang as modified, as taught by Elkuch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased load-bearing & load-lifting capacity to the desk.
PNG
media_image1.png
110
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), & Lock (4927127) in view of Yano (JP2000026078). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first, second, third & fourth arm segments (23, 20, 27, 15 of Huang); but fail(s) to teach grooves. However, Yano teaches providing first (3), second (4), third (9), and fourth (10) arm segments with first, second, third, & fourth grooves, respectively (A in Fig. 4c Annotated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add grooves, as taught by Yano, to each of the arm segments of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost & weight of the desk.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), & Lock (4927127) in view of Delagey (9049923). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a support arm assembly (9); a desk board assembly (2); and a base (10); but fail(s) to teach auxiliary link assemblies. However, Delagey teaches an auxiliary link assembly (80, 82) that comprises a slide rail (82) fixedly connecting with a desk board assembly (30); and a link rod (80) rotatably connecting with a support arm assembly (50) at one end of the link rod, and slidably connecting with the slide rail through a pulley (i.e., portion of 80 engaged with 82) at another end of the link rod (Fig. 2 & col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 6). Additionally, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an auxiliary link assembly, as taught by Delagey, between each of the first & second arm segments and the base, and between each of the third & fourth arm segments & the desk board assembly, of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional support to both the support arm assemblies & the desk board assembly (as suggested by col. 4, lines 61-63 of Delagey). Hence, Huang as modified would teach at least two groups of auxiliary link assemblies (i.e., 80 & 82 of Delagey between 2 & 9 of Huang, and 80 & 82 of Delagey between 9 & 10 of Huang).
Claims 13-14 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549) in view of Cheng (CN2467363) & Lin (CN215685535).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a height-adjustable desk, comprising: a base (10); a desk board assembly (2) above the base; two support arm assemblies (9) arranged between the desk board assembly and the base in parallel (Fig. 2), wherein, each of the two support arm assemblies is a rhombic linkage mechanism and comprises a first arm segment (23-24), a second arm segment (18 & 20), a third arm segment (26-27) and a fourth arm segment (15-16), both a bottom end of the first arm segment and a bottom end of the second arm segment rotatably connect with the base (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), both a top end of the third arm segment and a top end of the fourth arm segment rotatably connect with the desk board assembly (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), a top end of the first arm segment rotatably connects with a bottom end of the third arm segment (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13), a top end of the second arm segment rotatably connects with a bottom end of the fourth arm segment (Figs. 1-2 & par. 13); a connecting bar (22, 19, 25, & 17), wherein at least one group of two first arm segments, two second arm segments, two third arm segments and two fourth arm segments of two adjacent support arm assemblies connects with the connecting bar (Fig. 2); and at least one supporter (1, 3-5, 7, 11, 13, 29). Huang fail(s) to teach gears between the first, second, third & fourth arm segments; and a supporter that can extend & retract. However, Cheng teaches first (23) and second (11) gears. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add first & second gears, as taught by Cheng, to the rhombic linkage mechanism of Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent lateral swaying or wobbling of the arm segments, thereby increasing the stability of the desk (as suggested by p. 2 of Cheng’s written description). Additionally, Lin teaches at least one supporter (52), connecting with a base (1) at one end of the at least one supporter, and connecting with a connecting bar at another end of the at least one supporter (Figs. 1-2), the at least one supporter is capable of extending and retracting to adjust a distance between the connecting bar and the base in a vertical direction (par. 50-51), and the at least one supporter is configured to support the desk board assembly to maintain the distance between the connecting bar and the base in the vertical direction (implied by par. 50-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a supporter, as taught by Lin, for the supporter of Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the manual effort required to raise, lower, & support the desk board assembly, because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known support means for another.
Regarding claim 14, Huang as modified teaches a supporter (52 of Lin) that inclines relative to the vertical direction (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin), a top end of the at least one supporter rotatably connects with the connecting bar (25 of Huang), and a bottom end of the at least one supporter rotatably connects with the base (2 of Huang).
Regarding claim 19, Lin teaches a supporter (52) that is an electrically driven telescopic rod or a mechanically driven telescopic rod (implied by par. 50-51).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363) & Lin (CN215685535) in view of Alsten (1349801).
Regarding claim 15, Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a support arm assembly (9 of Huang) comprising a bottom gear seat (21 of Huang) at a joint of the first arm segment (23 of Huang) and the second arm segment (20 of Huang), so that both the bottom end of the first arm segment and the bottom end of the second arm segment rotatably connect with the base through the bottom gear seat (Fig. 1-2 of Huang). Huang as modified fail(s) to teach limit posts & arc chutes. However, Alsten teaches stabilizing means comprising first & second limit posts (16) respectively provided on the bottom ends of first & second arm segments (15), and first & second arc chutes (17) provided on a bottom gear seat (12) for accommodating the first & second limit posts to slide respectively (Fig. 1 & p. 1, lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add stabilizing means, as taught by Alsten, to the support arm assembly of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased lateral stability (as suggested by p. 1, lines 40-44 of Alsten).
Regarding claim 16, Huang as modified teaches a first arm segment (23 of Huang) and the second arm segment (20 of Huang) that are arranged along a first horizontal direction (Figs. 1-2 of Huang), the third arm segment (27 of Huang) and the fourth arm segment (15 of Huang) that are arranged along the first horizontal direction (Figs. 1-2 of Huang), the first arm segment and the second arm segment are symmetrically arranged based on a symmetry axis extending in the vertical direction (Fig. 1 of Huang), and the third arm segment and the fourth arm segment are symmetrically arranged based on the symmetry axis (Fig. 1 of Huang); and wherein in the first horizontal direction, the top end of the at least one supporter and the bottom end of the at least one supporter (52 of Lin) are respectively located at different sides of the symmetry axis (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin, showing the ends of the supporter (52) being located on different sides of the base (1)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), Lin (CN215685535) & Alsten (1349801) in view of Flaherty (20150250303). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a desk board assembly (2 of Huang) comprising a desk board (2 of Huang); but fail(s) to teach a top frame. However, Flaherty teaches the inclusion, in a desk board assembly (10, 110), of a top frame (110) to which arm segments (30) rotatably connect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a top frame, as taught by Flaherty, to the desk board assembly of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate easier assembly & transportation of the elevation working platform as well as replacement of the desk board (as suggested by par. 73 of Flaherty). Hence, Huang as modified would teach a desk board assembly (2 of Huang & 110 of Flaherty) that comprises a top frame (110 of Flaherty) and a desk board (2 of Huang), both the third arm segment (27 of Huang) and the fourth arm segment (15 of Huang) rotatably connect with the top frame (as in Fig. 22 of Flaherty), the desk board fixedly connects with a top of the top frame (as in Fig. 22 of Flaherty), the top frame comprises a first end (i.e., right end of 110 of Flaherty), the top end of the at least one supporter (52 of Lin) locates between the first end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin), a distance between the first end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L1 (as in Fig. 24 of Flaherty), and a distance between the top end of the at least one supporter and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L2 (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin); and wherein, the base (10 of Huang) comprises a second end (i.e., left end of 10 of Huang), the second end and the first end respectively locate at different sides of the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction (as in Fig. 1 of Huang & Fig. 24 of Flaherty), the bottom end of the at least one supporter locates between the second end and the symmetry axis (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin), a distance between the second end and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L3 (as in Fig. 1 of Huang), and a distance between the bottom end of the at least one supporter and the symmetry axis in the first horizontal direction is L4 (as in Figs. 1-2 of Lin). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the desk of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making L2 half of L1, and making L4 half of L3, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the desk (e.g., intended use of the workstation, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), Lin (CN215685535), Alsten (1349801) & Flaherty (20150250303) in view of Elkuch (4741512). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a supporter (52 of Lin); but fail(s) to teach a plurality of supporters. However, Elkuch teaches two supporters (13) arranged at intervals along a second horizontal direction; wherein the two supporters are parallel to each other (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second, identical supporter to the structure of Huang as modified, as taught by Elkuch, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased load-bearing & load-lifting capacity to the desk.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN208875549), Cheng (CN2467363), & Lin (CN215685535) in view of Delagey (9049923). Huang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a support arm assembly (9); a desk board assembly (2); and a base (10); but fail(s) to teach auxiliary link assemblies. However, Delagey teaches an auxiliary link assembly (80, 82) that comprises a slide rail (82) fixedly connecting with a desk board assembly (30); and a link rod (80) rotatably connecting with a support arm assembly (50) at one end of the link rod, and slidably connecting with the slide rail through a pulley (i.e., portion of 80 engaged with 82) at another end of the link rod (Fig. 2 & col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 6). Additionally, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an auxiliary link assembly, as taught by Delagey, between each of the first & second arm segments and the base, and between each of the third & fourth arm segments & the desk board assembly, of Huang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional support to both the support arm assemblies & the desk board assembly (as suggested by col. 4, lines 61-63 of Delagey). Hence, Huang as modified would teach at least two groups of auxiliary link assemblies (i.e., 80 & 82 of Delagey between 2 & 9 of Huang, and 80 & 82 of Delagey between 9 & 10 of Huang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637