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 because they include three-dimensional shading (grayscale) and are not simply black line drawings (see the cited references for examples). Per MPEP 608.02(VII)(A), “Black and white drawings are normally required in utility patent applications. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.” Moreover, per MPEP 608.02(VII)(B), “Black And White Photographs And Grayscale Drawings” are only acceptable “in lieu of India ink drawings . . . to illustrate inventions which are incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings” (emphasis added). Examples of such situations include “electrophoresis gels, blots, (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, metallurgical microstructures, textile fabrics, grain structures and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects.” The structure disclosed in the instant application is not “incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings,” and clearly does not fall into any of the above categories. If shading is needed for explanation of the invention then it should be of one of the approved symbols/hatching. See MPEP 608.02(IX).
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 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 3, 7-8, 11, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 & 11, the term “the frame” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claims 7 & 15, the term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claims 7 & 15, the term “wide” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Regarding claim 8, the inclusion of “e.g.,” (“for example”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following “e.g.,” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang (20070006781).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang teaches an outdoor tabletop system (10) comprising: A tabletop (12) structure having a first heat expansion characteristic (implied by par. 19, which states that 12 is made of slate); a rim (13, 15) disposed around a perimeter of the tabletop structure, the rim having a second heat expansion characteristic different than the first heat expansion characteristic of the tabletop structure (implied by par. 19, which states that 13 is made of wood or wood/plastic composite - note that wood, plastic, & slate all have different linear thermal expansion coefficients); a gap (C in Fig. 3 Annotated) between the perimeter (D) of the tabletop structure and the rim (see Fig. 3, showing the gap (C) to be between the perimeter (D) & a portion (15) of the rim (13, 15)); and, a deformable material (18) having sufficient elasticity, or heat expansion characteristic that are different from the heat expansion characteristics of the tabletop structure and rim (implied by par. 21, which states that 18 is made of natural or synthetic rubber), positioned in the gap (C) between the tabletop structure (12) and the rim (13, 15), which expands and contracts to fill the gap during changes in environmental conditions (note that such expansion & contraction is an inherent property of natural & synthetic rubber).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 & 10, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) that is supported by a frame (14 & A in Fig. 1 Annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
247
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 & 11, Xiang teaches a rim (13, 15) attached to the frame (14 & A).
Regarding claims 4 & 12, Xiang teaches a rim (13, 15) that is made of a manufactured wood product (see par. 19, which notes that the frame (11), of which the rim (13, 15) is a part, is made of a combination of wood & plastic - i.e., a wood-plastic composite, which is a manufactured wood product).
Regarding claims 5 & 13, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) comprises a top-facing decorative portion (i.e., upper portion of 12, which can be considered “decorative” by those who enjoy the appearance of a slate tabletop).
Regarding claims 6 & 14, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) that is made from stone (i.e., slate - see par. 19).
Regarding claims 7 & 15, Xiang teaches a deformable material (18) that has a high elasticity over a wide range of environmental conditions (note that natural & synthetic rubber possesses such elasticity).
Regarding claims 8 & 16, Xiang teaches a deformable material (18) that is a natural or synthetic rubber (par. 21).
Regarding claim 9, Xiang teaches an outdoor tabletop system (10) comprising: a tabletop structure (12) having a first geometry (Figs. 1 & 3); a rim (13, 15) disposed around a perimeter (D) of the tabletop structure, the rim having a second geometry different from the first geometry of the tabletop structure (Figs. 1 & 3); a gap (C) between the perimeter of the tabletop structure and the rim; and a deformable material (18) positioned in the gap between the tabletop structure and the rim which visually conceals differences between the first geometry of the tabletop structure and the second geometry of the rim (note that the deformable material (18) would conceal such differences from an observer located at point “E” in Fig. 3 Annotated).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (20070006781) in view of Kim (KR20170078260).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an outdoor tabletop system (10 in Fig. 1 - note that since this system can obviously be used outdoors, it is therefore an “outdoor table system”) comprising: a tabletop structure (12) having a first heat expansion characteristic (implied by par. 19, which states that 12 is made of slate); a rim (13) disposed around a perimeter of the tabletop structure, the rim having a second heat expansion characteristic different than the first heat expansion characteristic of the tabletop structure (implied by par. 19, which states that 13 is made of wood or wood/plastic composite - note that wood, plastic, & slate all have different linear thermal expansion coefficients); a gap (B) between (Fig. 3) the perimeter (16) of the tabletop structure and the rim (13). Xiang fail(s) to teach a deformable material. However, Kim teaches a deformable material (250) having sufficient elasticity, or heat expansion characteristic that are different from the heat expansion characteristics of the tabletop structure and rim (implied by par. 45, which states that 250 is made of silicone), positioned in a gap between a tabletop structure (22) and a rim (21), which expands and contracts to fill the gap during changes in environmental conditions (note that such expansion & contraction is an inherent property of silicone). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a deformable material, as taught by Kim, to the system of Xiang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the infiltration of liquids between the tabletop structure & rim (as suggested by par. 45-46 & Fig. 5 of Kim).
Regarding claims 2 & 10, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) that is supported by a frame (14-15 & A).
Regarding claims 3 & 11, Xiang teaches a rim (13) that is attached (Figs. 1 & 3) to the frame (14-15 & A).
Regarding claims 4 & 12, Xiang teaches a rim (13) that is made of a manufactured wood product (see par. 19, which notes that the frame (11), of which the rim (13) is a part, is made of a combination of wood & plastic - i.e., a wood-plastic composite, which is a manufactured wood product).
Regarding claims 5 & 13, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) comprises a top-facing decorative portion (i.e., upper portion of 12, which can be considered “decorative” by those who enjoy the appearance of a slate tabletop).
Regarding claims 6 & 14, Xiang teaches a tabletop structure (12) that is made from stone (i.e., slate - see par. 19).
Regarding claims 7 & 15, Kim teaches a deformable material (250) that has a high elasticity over a wide range of environmental conditions (note that silicone possesses such elasticity).
Regarding claims 8 & 16, Kim teaches a deformable material (250) that is silicone (par. 45), which is a type of synthetic rubber. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Kim’s deformable material isn’t made of synthetic rubber, Xiang further teaches making a deformable material (18) from natural or synthetic rubber (see par. 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the deformable material of Xiang as modified from synthetic rubber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase its durability.
Regarding claim 9, Xiang as modified teaches an outdoor tabletop system (10 of Xiang & 250 of Kim) comprising: a tabletop structure (12 of Xiang) having a first geometry (Figs. 1 & 3 of Xiang); a rim disposed around a perimeter of the tabletop structure (Figs. 1 & 3 of Xiang), the rim (13 of Xiang) having a second geometry different from the first geometry of the tabletop structure (owing to the size differences between 12 & 13 of Xiang, which are implied by the gap (B of Xiang) therebetween); a gap (B of Xiang) between the perimeter (16 of Xiang) of the tabletop structure and the rim (Fig. 3 of Xiang); and a deformable material (250 of Kim) positioned in the gap between the tabletop structure and the rim which visually conceals differences between the first geometry of the tabletop structure and the second geometry of the rim (as in Fig. 5 of Kim).
Claims 5 & 13 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (20070006781) & Kim (KR20170078260) in view of Roux (20190141795). Xiang as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a tabletop structure (12 of Xiang); but arguably fail(s) to teach a decorative portion. However, Roux teaches the inclusion, in a tabletop structure (4), of a top-facing (par. 46) decorative portion (9 - see par. 19, which notes that this decorative portion may be a coating such as paint). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a decorative portion, as taught by Roux, to the tabletop structure of Xiang as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the aesthetics thereof.
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