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 .
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 swivel table leg that is adjustable in length (cl. 20) 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 18-19 & 21-29 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).
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 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 an 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 28, Piretti teaches at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) that includes a support surface (38) configured to support (via 40, 50, & 60 - see Fig. 5) an underside of the table top (11, 40) in the operational state (Fig. 5).
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).
Claim(s) 18, 24-27, 30-31, & 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiariello (3786766).
Regarding claim 18, Chiariello teaches a folding table (10), comprising: a table top (12) having a substantially horizontal planar extent in an operational state (Figs. 1 & 4-5); a plurality of table legs (16, 18) attached to the table top such that the table top can be swiveled (col. 2, lines 61-68) relative to the plurality of table legs about a first axis of rotation (30) from the operational state (Figs. 1, 4, 5) into an inoperative state (Figs. 2, 3, 6) 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 (18) that can be swiveled about a second axis of rotation (i.e., vertical line extending along portion of 18 within 14) from an unfolded position (Fig. 1) into a folded position (Fig. 2), the second axis of rotation deviating from the first axis of rotation (implied by Figs. 2 & 6); and an actuating linkage (40, 50) coupling the table top to the at least one swivel table leg 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 (col. 4, lines 9-36).
Regarding claim 24, Chiariello teaches a deviating planar extent of the table top (12) in the inoperative state (Figs. 2-3 & 6) is an essentially vertical planar extent (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Chiariello teaches a first axis of rotation (30) that extends horizontally parallel (Figs. 4-5) to the planar extent of the table top (12).
Regarding claim 26, Chiariello teaches a structure wherein: during movement of the at least one swivel table leg (18) from the unfolded position (Fig. 1) to the folded position (Fig. 2), the at least one swivel table leg swivels about the second axis of rotation in a direction towards the table top in the inoperative state (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Chiariello teaches a second axis of rotation (i.e., vertical line extending along portion of 18 within 14) that extends substantially perpendicular (Figs. 4-5) to the first axis of rotation (30).
Regarding claim 30, Chiariello teaches a stop (36, 38) operably associated with the at least one swivel table leg (18) to limit a swivel motion of the swivel table leg from the unfolded position into the folded position (implied by Figs. 4 & 6).
Regarding claim 31, Chiariello teaches at least one swivel table leg (18) that includes two swivel table legs (18); and the plurality of table legs (16, 18) further includes two non-swivel table legs (16).
Regarding claim 33, Chiariello teaches a structure wherein: contact points (18a) of the swivel table legs (18) with a floor on which the table stands are disposed on a same side of the table top (12) in its inoperative state as viewed from above in the folded position of the swivel table legs (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 34, Chiariello teaches a structure wherein: the table top (12) in its inoperative state as viewed from above is disposed between (Fig. 3) contact points (16a) of the non-swivel table legs (16) with a floor on which the table stands, and contact points (18a) of the swivel table legs (18) with the floor, the contact points (16a) of the non-swivel table legs (16) being on an opposite side (Fig. 3) of the table top (12) from the contact points (18a) of the swivel table legs (18).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piretti (20060230991) in view of Dunagan (4593874). Piretti teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38) having a fixed length; but fail(s) to teach a table leg having an adjustable length. However, Dunagan teaches a table leg (23) having an adjustable length (via the inclusion of leveling foot 24-27). 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 swivel table legs of Piretti adjustable in length, as taught by Dunagan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for leveling of the table top (as suggested by col. 3, lines 24-26 of Dunagan). Hence, Piretti as modified would teach at least one swivel table leg (12a, 12b, 20, 38; 14a, 14b, 20, 38 of Piretti, and 24-27 of Dunagan) that is adjustable in length (via 24-27 of Dunagan).
Claims 18, 24-27, & 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (EP3001929) in view of Chiariello (3786766).
Regarding claim 18, Keller teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a folding table (1), comprising: a table top (2) having a substantially horizontal planar extent in an operational state (Fig. 1); a plurality of table feet (41-42) attached to the table top such that the table top can be swiveled relative to the plurality of table feet about a first axis of rotation (71) from the operational state into an inoperative state (Fig. 4) in which the table top has a planar extent deviating from the horizontal planar extent, wherein the plurality of table feet includes at least one swivel table foot (41) that can be swiveled about a second axis of rotation (32) from an unfolded position into a folded position, the second axis of rotation deviating from the first axis of rotation (Figs. 2-4); and an actuating linkage (6, 52) coupling the table top to the at least one swivel table foot 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 foot from the unfolded position to the folded position (Figs. 6-7). Keller fail(s) to teach a plurality of table legs.
PNG
media_image1.png
164
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chiariello teaches a plurality of table legs (16a, 18a, A-B in Fig. 3 Annotated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute table legs, as taught by Chiariello, for the table feet of Keller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional height to the table, thereby making the table more convenient for taller persons.
Regarding claim 24, Keller teaches a deviating planar extent of the table top (2) in the inoperative state is an essentially vertical planar extent (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 25, Keller teaches a first axis of rotation (71) that extends horizontally (Figs. 2-4) parallel to the planar extent of the table top (2).
Regarding claim 26, Keller as modified teaches a structure wherein: during movement of the at least one swivel table leg (18a & B of Chiariello) from the unfolded position (Fig. 1 of Keller) to the folded position (Fig. 4 of Keller), the at least one swivel table leg swivels about the second axis of rotation in a direction towards the table top (2 of Keller) in the inoperative state (Figs. 2-4 of Keller).
Regarding claim 27, Keller teaches a second axis of rotation (32) extends substantially perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (71).
Regarding claim 30, Keller as modified teaches a stop (523-524 of Keller) operably associated with the at least one swivel table leg (18a & B of Chiariello) to limit a swivel motion of the swivel table leg from the unfolded position into the folded position (Figs. 6-7 of Keller).
Regarding claim 31, Keller as modified teaches at least one swivel table leg (18a & B of Chiariello) that includes two swivel table legs (18a & B of Chiariello); and the plurality of table legs further includes two non-swivel table legs (16a & A of Chiariello).
Regarding claim 32, Keller as modified teaches swivel table legs (18a & B of Chiariello) that can be swiveled (Figs. 2-4 of Keller) from their unfolded position (Fig. 1 of Keller) into their folded position (Fig. 4 of Keller) about the same second axis of rotation (32 of Keller).
Regarding claim 33, Keller as modified teaches contact points (18a) of the swivel table legs (18a & B of Chiariello) with a floor on which the table stands are disposed on a same side of the table top in its inoperative state (Fig. 4 of Keller) as viewed from above in the folded position of the swivel table legs (as in Fig. 4 of Keller).
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