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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 table platform that can rotate and move in a horizontal plane; the collapsible platform; the whiteboard and touch screen on the table platforms; the height lock system; and the platforms having a monitor stand, table separator and drawers 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.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are 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. How the platforms can rotate and move in a horizontal plane and/or collapse and what is involved in the height lock system are unclear from the specification and figures, as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keyzer et al (WO2021207383). Keyzer teaches a multi-movable desk station (104; Fig. 2), configured to provide a possibility of simultaneous use by more than one user, and comprising; at least one table platform (114) configured to move up and down on a single body (110),at least one linear actuator (112), as many as the number of table platforms, configured to enable the up and down movement of the table platforms , at least one table platform carcass (connector plate shown in Fig. 5), as many as the number of table platforms carrying the table platforms on the linear actuators, at least one direction switch (paragraph 0033), as many as the number of table platforms, which configured to enable commands to move up and down the table platforms and enable to be fixed at the desired height; and a common monolithic body (frame 202 shown in Fig. 4) configured to carry all linear actuators, hence the table platform carcasses, the table platforms and the direction switches on the linear actuators. At least four adjustable floor shoes (see foot near numeral 212 in Fig. 15) that enables the multi-movable desk station to be able to press it evenly on the ground. The table platforms are made of wood material (paragraph 0029). The body and table platform carcasses are made of metal material (paragraph 0029). The body and table platform carcasses are made of steel material (paragraph 0029). The linear actuators have a height lock system (by controlling the motors, as best understood).
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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Bates (2007/0034758). As stated above, Keyzer teaches a desk station with linear actuators situated in a body. Keyzer further teaches ground connection flanges (three pieces of 212; Fig. 4), which connect the linear actuators to the body at the ground level and fix them from the bottom. Although it appears that there are fixing wedges (see below) that enable the linear actuators to be fixed to the body and to be clamped by bedding on the upper part of the body, these features are not expressly discussed. Bates teaches the use of wedges (60) and fixing screws (58) to help hold a structure in place. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer by adding wedges and fixing screws, such as is taught by Bates, between the actuators and body, to enable the table platforms to be used at the desired height, stable and smooth.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 18, Keyzer in view of Bates further teaches at least four adjustable floor shoes (six; see Fig. 15) configured to enable the multi-movable desk station to be able to press the at least four adjustable floor shoes evenly on the ground.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Bates (2007/0034758) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of Fan (2012/0019116). As stated above, Keyzer in view of Bates teaches the limitations of claim 2, including a common monolithic body. The body includes surface plates thereover and vents for the actuators/cable guides (on upper plate, see Fig. 2). For claim 17, Keyzer in view of Bates fails to teach handles on the plates. Fan teaches a handle (25) on a surface plate (21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer in view of Bates, by adding handles, such as is taught by Fan, on one or more of the panels, to provide a way to grasp the panel for removal/insertion or to help move the station as a whole.
Claims 3, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Fan (2012/0019116). As stated above, Keyzer teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a common monolithic body. The body includes surface plates thereover and vents for the actuators/cable guides (on upper plate, see Fig. 2). For claim 3, Keyzer fails to teach handles on the plates. Fan teaches a handle (25) on a surface plate (21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer, by adding handles, such as is taught by Fan, on one or more of the panels, to provide a way to grasp the panel for removal/insertion or to help move the station as a whole.
For claim 14, Keyzer in view of Fan further teaches that the plates can be made of wood material (paragraph 0029).
For claim 19, Keyzer in view of Fan further teaches at least four adjustable floor shoes (six; see Fig. 15) configured to enable the multi-movable desk station to be able to press the at least four adjustable floor shoes evenly on the ground.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Fan (2012/0019116), as stated above, and further in view of Shoenfeld et al (9,655,438). As stated above, Keyzer in view of Fan teaches the limitations of claim 3, including a body with surface plates having vents. These vents are outer vents that allow the input and output of cables (at 234), linear actuators (220) or other components, at least as much as the number of table platforms; flexible, extensible cable holders (234) carry the cables externally connected to the multi-movable desk station from the floor from the outlet vents to the table platform carcasses and thus to the surface of the table platforms and allows the movement of the cables, and at least one power and computer docking station (226) on the table platforms (Fig. 6) and as many as the number of table platforms, to which the cables coming through the holders are connected. For claim 4, Keyzer in view of Fan fails to specifically teach shortenable spiral conduits (8) for the cable holders. Shoenfeld teaches the use of shortenable spiral conduits (52) as cable holders. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer in view of Fan, by using shortenable spiral conduits, such as is taught by Shoenfeld, in place of or in addition to the cable holders presently used, to provide cable holders that keep the cables compact with each other and to provide a cable holder that takes up less space.
For claim 20, Keyzer in view of Fan and Shoenfeld further teaches at least four adjustable floor shoes (six; see Fig. 15) configured to enable the multi-movable desk station to be able to press the at least four adjustable floor shoes evenly on the ground.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Desroches (10,376,158). As stated above, Keyzer teaches the limitations of claim 1, including table platforms on actuators. For claim 6, Keyzer fails to teach that the table platforms are in a structure that can move in the horizontal plane and rotate in the horizontal plane. Desroches teaches a table platform on an actuator that can move in a horizontal plane and rotate in the horizontal plane (Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer, by making the platforms movable in a horizontal plane and rotate in the horizontal plane, such as is taught by Desroches, for ergonomic reasons.
For claim 7, Keyzer in view of Desroches further teaches direction switches that enable the commands of up-down movement and fixation at the desired height to the linear actuators (paragraph 0033 of Keyzer) and horizontal movement and rotation commands to the table platforms would inherently be provided to operate the additional movements. Although direction keys are not specifically stated, this type of control panel is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to use such a structure to operate the actuators.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Lu et al (CN108621967). As stated above, Keyzer teaches the limitations of claim 1, including table platforms. For claim 8, Keyzer fails to teach that the platforms can collapse. Lu teaches a table platform that is collapsible (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer, by using collapsible platform(s), such as is taught by Lu, thereon, to have the station or portions of the station take up less space during non-use.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383). As stated above, Keyzer teaches the limitations of claim 1, including table platforms. For claims 9 and 10, Keyzer fails to teach a whiteboard or electronic tablet surface with touch screen on the platforms. The examiner takes Official notice that whiteboards and tablets are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer, by adding whiteboard and/or tablet surfaces on the platforms, to provide learning tools with the station.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyzer et al (WO2021207383) in view of Johnson (5,729,430). As stated above, Keyzer teaches the limitations of claim 1, including table platforms. The platforms include cable paths (via 232 in Fig. 8) and table separators (116). For claim 12, Keyzer fails to teach that the platforms include a monitor stand and drawers. Johnson teaches a table platform having a monitor stand with a drawer (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the station of Keyzer, by adding a monitor stand with drawer, such as is taught by Johnson on the platforms, to provide learning tools and storage with the station. If plural drawers are needed on each stations, it would have been obvious to stack two stands of Johnson on the platform(s) of Keyser, to provide a higher stand and more storage. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.04
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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, 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.
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.
Wilkens
February 11, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637