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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because 1) it employs legal terminology, specifically, “invention”; and 2) it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 18-19, 21-27, & 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piretti (20060230991).
Regarding claim 18, Piretti teaches a folding table (10), comprising: a table top (11, 40) having a substantially horizontal planar extent in an operational state (Figs. 1, 3, 5); a plurality of table legs (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) attached to the table top such that the table top can be swiveled (par. 26 and Figs. 1, 3, 7, 9) relative to the plurality of table legs about a first axis of rotation (42) from the operational state (Figs. 1, 3, 5) into an inoperative state (Figs. 8-10) in which the table top has a planar extent deviating from the horizontal planar extent, wherein the plurality of table legs includes at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) that can be swiveled (par. 22, 24, 27) about a second axis of rotation (22) from an unfolded position (Fig. 2) into a folded position (Fig. 8), the second axis of rotation deviating from the first axis of rotation (Fig. 4); and an actuating linkage (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60) coupling the table top to the at least one swivel table leg (Fig. 5) such that a transition of the table top from the operational state to the inoperative state also automatically swivels the at least one swivel table leg from the unfolded position to the folded position (par. 27 & 29); wherein the at least one swivel table leg includes a lever element (38) attached to an upper distal end of the swivel table leg and configured to swivel (Figs. 2 & 8) about the second axis of rotation (22) and the lever element includes a support surface (i.e., upper surface of 38) on which an underside of the table top (11, 40) in its operational state (Figs. 1, 3, 5) comes to rest (indirectly, via the actuating linkage (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60) - see Fig. 5).1
Regarding claim 19, Piretti teaches an actuating linkage (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60) that includes an actuating rod (50) having a first end (54) articulated on the table top (11, 40) at a distance (Fig. 2) from the first axis of rotation (42) and a second end (52) articulated on the lever element (38) of the swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) at a distance (Fig. 5) from the second axis of rotation (22).
Regarding claim 21, Piretti teaches a first end (54) of an actuating rod (50) that is articulated on the underside (Figs. 3 & 5) of the table top (11, 40) by a universal joint (56 - see Fig. 3 & par. 28).
Regarding claim 22, Piretti teaches a universal joint (56) is rotatably mounted (Figs. 2-3 & 7-8 and par. 28) to the table top (11, 40) in a plane (i.e., bottom surface of 40) extending parallel to the planar extent of the table top (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Piretti teaches a second end (52) of the actuating rod (50 that is articulated on the swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) by a fork joint (at 52 - see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Piretti teaches a deviating planar extent of the table top (11, 40) in the inoperative state (Figs. 8-10) is an essentially vertical planar extent (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 25, Piretti teaches a first axis of rotation (42) that extends horizontally parallel to the planar extent (Fig. 4) of the table top (11, 40).
Regarding claim 26, Piretti teaches a structure wherein: during movement of the at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) from the unfolded position (Fig. 2) to the folded position (Fig. 8), the at least one swivel table leg swivels about the second axis of rotation (22) in a direction towards the table top in the inoperative state (Figs. 2 & 8).
Regarding claim 27, Piretti teaches a second axis of rotation (22) that extends substantially perpendicular (Fig. 4) to the first axis of rotation (42).
Regarding claim 29, Piretti teaches a tabletop (11, 40) including a latching lock (62, 70) configured to secure the table top in its operational state at the support surface (Fig. 5 & par. 33).
Regarding claim 30, Piretti teaches a stop (62, 70) operably associated (via 26 & 40) with the at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) to limit a swivel motion (Fig. 5 & par. 33 - note that, when the stop (62, 70) is engaged, the swivel table leg cannot rotate) of the swivel table leg from the unfolded position (Fig. 2) into the folded position (Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piretti (20060230991). Piretti teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an actuating rod (50) having a fixed length; but fail(s) to teach an actuating rod having an adjustable length. However, making a component adjustable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make each of the actuating rods of Piretti adjustable in length, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the adjusting rod to be used with lever elements having different shapes & sizes (e.g., as a result of aesthetics, manufacturing defects, changes in design).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
1 None of the drawings of the instant application show the table top (4) resting directly on any portion of either of the lever elements (48) of the swivel table legs (6). Only in Fig. 1 is the operational state of the table shown; and in Fig. 1, it is the mounting plate (20) - not the table top (4) itself - that rests directly on the support surfaces (50) of the lever elements (48). Hence, Fig. 1 depicts an “operational state” in which the table top (4) rests indirectly upon the support surfaces (50) of the lever elements (48), via another component (i.e., the mounting plate (20)) positioned between the table top (4) and support surfaces (50) of the lever elements (48). In Piretti, the table top (11, 40) likewise rests indirectly on a support surface (i.e., upper surface of 38) of a lever element (38), via another component (i.e., the actuating linkage (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60)) that is located between the table top (11, 40) and the support surface (i.e., upper surface of 38) of the lever element (38). Hence, the examiner submits that Piretti likewise teaches “a support surface on which an underside of the table top in its operational state comes to rest”, as that limitation is read in light of the specification of the instant application.
Prosecution Insights