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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “annular” in claim 1 seems to be used by the claim to mean “angled,” while the accepted meaning is “ring-shaped.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11, 13, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman (5327838) and Johnston (2793407). Beltman discloses a children activity table having a first u-shaped leg (50) with an outer surface opposite an inner surface which includes first and second mounting positions, a second u-shaped leg (52) with an outer surface opposite an inner surface which includes third and fourth mounting positions and a first apron (33) with first and second opposite ends each with respective mounting positions, wherein the u-shaped legs and first apron are configured to be mounted together in a standing position at the mounting positions such that the first apron extends between and structurally connects with the first and second u-shaped legs (Figs. 1-3). The first apron (Fig. 3) further has an outer wall opposite an inner wall wherein the outer wall has a height greater than the inner wall since a height of the inner wall is set by a channel (40). The first u-shaped member includes a horizontal support member (40) disposed on the inner surface thereof (Fig. 3). A table top (12, 30) includes a planar body (30) that can slidably and removably engage the first and second u-shaped legs and first apron in the standing position by removably engaging atop a portion of the horizontal support member and the inner wall (Figs. 1 & 2). The table top further includes a smooth top playing surface (12) and the planar body includes openings (4) under which a storage bin (10) adapted to receive and contain children play toys (column 2 lines 67-68) is removably connected by means of a bottom surface (5) of the planar body (Figs. 2 & 4). Beltman discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the components used to mount the components together. Johnston discloses mounting means for use in connecting furniture components that can include tables (column 1 lines 15-22), wherein a first component includes an elongated mounting plate (20) with first (34) and second (35) elongated angled rails curled upward from a base and spaced apart in a non-parallel orientation to form a mounting bracket (Figs. 2 & 6) and a second component includes an elongated plate (21) with respective angular rails (34, 35) curled upward from a base and spaced apart in a non-parallel orientation to define an pocket formed by a partially surrounded opening (Figs. 2 & 7) that is configured to slidably and removably engage with the mounting bracket in a standing configuration (Figs. 1 & 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Johnston to include a mounting bracket to each of the mounting positions on the first and second u-shaped legs and an elongated plate on each end of the first apron for the predictable result of enabling the components to be mounted together in a more easily detachable manner that further provides an interconnection with improved rigidity and stability (column 1 lines 23-28).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman and Johnson as applied above and further in view of Campbell (1537459). Beltman and Johnson disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the outer wall of the first apron having a length that is greater than a length of the inner wall to define first and second mounting end surfaces on which the elongated plates are positioned in an opposing manner. Campbell discloses furniture components wherein a component (36) with a mounting plate (45) is configured with an outer surface and an inner surface in which a length of the outer surfaces would be greater than the inner surface due to a recess (40) that forms a mounting surface for the plate (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Campbell to form the inner wall of the first apron to have a length smaller than an outer wall so as to create opposing surfaces that receive respective elongated plates for the predictable result of creating a more streamlined appearance since the mounting components would be hidden when viewing the outer surfaces of the furniture.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman and Johnson as applied above and further in view of Mei (CN213247984U). Beltman and Johnson disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of having a storage net. Mei discloses that a storage element that can be attached to a children toy table is a storage net (43) capable of receiving toys (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one of the storage bins of Beltman with a storage net as taught by Mei for the predictable result of providing additional storage solutions using known storage elements. Furthermore, using known materials suitable for the intended use has been held to be an obvious modification. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman, Johnson and Mei as applied above and further in view of King (5615619). Beltman, Johnson and Mei disclose the basic inventive concept, with the exception of the top playing surface having a plurality of knobs projecting perpendicularly from the playing surface that are adapted for mating with interconnecting play toys. King discloses a children activity table that can include a top surface (250) that is configured to be useable with interconnecting play toys (104) by having a plurality of perpendicular knobs projecting therefrom (254) for mating with the interconnecting play toys (Figs. 1 & 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure a top surface of Beltman to include a plurality of perpendicular projecting knobs as taught by King for the predictable result of providing enhanced utility and functionality to the table by enabling more versatile play options.
Claim(s) 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman and Johnston as applied for claim 35 above and further in view of Schuldt (1850420). Beltman and Johnston disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the smooth table top including checker game board design markings. Schuldt discloses an activity table with a table top having markings that include a checker board design (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include checker board design markings to the table top of Beltman and Johnson for the predictable result of providing the table with enhanced utility and functionality by enabling a wider variety of uses for the table including game play. Furthermore, printed matter need not be given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman and Johnston as applied for claim 35 above and further in view of Mottram (GB2490544A). Beltman and Johnston disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of having train track design markings on the smooth surface. Mottram discloses an activity table with a table top having markings that include a train track design (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include train track design markings to the smooth surface of the table top of Beltman and Johnson for the predictable result of providing the table with enhanced utility and functionality by enabling a wider variety of uses for the table including imaginative play. Furthermore, printed matter need not be given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltman and Johnson as applied above for claim 35 and further in view of Nayak (5055081). Beltman and Johnston disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of the smooth table top including puzzle board design markings. Nayak discloses a table configured to form a children’s activity table (abstract, Fig. 6) that includes perpendicular apron members, at least one leg and a smooth table top surface (100) that includes markings (104) thereon in the form of a puzzle board design for use by children during play (Fig. 7, column 4 lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Nayak to modify the table top of Beltman and Johnson to be configured with puzzle board markings on the smooth surface for the predictable results of giving the table enhanced utility and functionality by enabling the table to take a wider variety of forms that can further be used to provide amusement to children. Furthermore, printed matter need not be given patentable weight absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to the use of “annular” being indefinite, the examiner notes that two separate definitions for the term are newly provided in the response: “The term “annular” as used here describes the geometric profile of the rails, indicating they are curved or arcuate in nature.” and “The term “annular” is used to describe this peripheral. It denotes a structural configuration that partially encircles a central recess.”, wherein neither of these new definitions was clearly defined in the specification and drawings as filed and contradicts the established definition admitted to by applicant as referring to “a component or contour that is ring-shaped, circular, or surrounding a central structure” since it at most only includes partial components of what is required by the word as a whole and as such the term as used in the claims is still indefinite.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the structure of the rails as shown with the rails being open ended and permitting vertical or arcuate insertion that is tool-free and the support member needing to protrude from a surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references all relate to features useable in tables and furniture and as such is derived from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711