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 Objections
Claim4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “between two” should read –between the two--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 connecting rod and the top transverse rod can be laid flatly on the bottom of the panel as recited in claim 1 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 § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delagey et al. (US patent 9,049,923) (hereinafter Delagey) in view of Ergun et al. (US patent application publication 2018/0279772) (hereinafter Ergun).
Regarding claim 1, Delagey discloses a floor-type height adjustable office desk, comprising a panel (30) and a bracket (49, 52) connected with a bottom of the panel, and characterized in that a top of the bracket is provided with top transverse rods (52), one end of each top transverse rod is rotationally connected with the bottom of the panel (Col. 4: 3-4), the other end of each top transverse rod is rotationally connected with a connecting rod (80), the bottom of the panel is provided with a fixing seat (82) in an area corresponding to the connecting rod, the fixing seat is fixedly connected with the bottom of the panel (Fig. 2), a chute (the slotted track, see Col. 4: 63-67) is arranged in the fixing seat, a sliding block (Col. 5: 1-2) is arranged in the chute, the sliding block is slidably connected with the chute, the other end of the connecting rod is rotationally connected with the sliding block (Col. 4: 61-Col. 5: 6); and when the sliding block slides to a farthest end, both the connecting rod and the top transverse rod can be laid flatly on the bottom of the panel (Fig. 3); and when the sliding block slides to a nearest end, a triangle is formed by the connecting rod, the top transverse rod and the corresponding bottom of the panel (Fig. 2).
Delagey does not disclose the bottom of the panel is also provided with a locking device used for locking a position of the sliding block. Ergun teaches a locking device (122) on a bottom of a panel. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delagey to include a locking device in view of Ergun’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for locking and unlocking the sliding block as taught by Ergun at [0040].
Regarding claim 2, Delagey, as modified, teaches a height adjustable desk characterized in that the bracket comprises two transverse U-shaped bracket bodies (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Delagey, as modified, teaches a height adjustable desk characterized in that a bottom reinforcing rod or bottom reinforcing plate (15) is connected between middle or end parts of bottoms of the two transverse U-shaped bracket bodies.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delagey in view of Ergun & Liu (US patent 11,083,282).
Regarding claim 4, Delagey, as modified, teaches the height adjustable desk as claimed. Delagey, as modified, does not teach a height adjustable desk characterized in that a top reinforcing rod or top reinforcing plate is connected between two top transverse rods. Liu teaches a top reinforcing plate (Fig. 3). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delagey, as previously modified, to include a top reinforcing plate in view of Liu’s teaching, because this arrangement would have improved the strength of the desk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637