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 it uses legal terminology, specifically “invention” and “discloses”. 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 § 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 9-12 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 9-10, the term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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 9, this claim recites “an innermost inner sleeve”; but claim 1, from which this claim depends, also recites “at least one inner sleeve”. It is therefore unclear whether “an innermost inner sleeve” in claim 9 refers to the same component(s) as, or different component(s) than, “at least one inner sleeve” in claim 1. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “an innermost inner sleeve” in claim 9 to refer to the same component(s) as “at least one inner sleeve” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, “the cover shell” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this term to refer to the same component(s) as “a cover” in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is indefinite because it depends from itself. This renders the scope of this claim unclear. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this claim to depend from claim 11.
Claims 10-12 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce (5483903) in view of Bricker (4735152).
Regarding claim 1, Pierce teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a height adjustable table (11), characterized by comprising: a lifting column (13) comprising a telescopic sleeve (13), and the telescopic sleeve comprising an outer sleeve (25) and at least one inner sleeve (26); and a side wall of the outer sleeve being formed with a connection position or area (i.e., outer surface of 25) for a tabletop support bracket; a driving mechanism (33, 46-47) configured to drive the lifting column to move up and down; and support means (17-18). Pierce fail(s) to teach a tabletop support bracket. However, Bricker teaches support means (10) comprising a tabletop support bracket (22, 24, 74) movably connected to an outer sleeve (12, 14), and the tabletop support bracket being relatively fixed with the outer sleeve after adjusting its height from the ground according to a required installation position (col., 3, line 60 to col. 4, line 26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute support means, as taught by Bricker, for the support means of Pierce, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage capacity, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known support means for another. Hence, Pierce as modified would teach a tabletop support bracket (22, 24, 74 of Bricker) moves with the outer sleeve (25 of Pierce) at the same time and stays at a preset position when the lifting stops (implied by Figs. 5-6 of Pierce & col., 3, line 60 to col. 4, line 26 of Bricker).
Regarding claim 2, Pierce as modified teaches connection members (30, 32 of Bricker) for connecting to the outer sleeve (25 of Pierce) that are formed on both sides of the tabletop support bracket (22, 24, 74 of Bricker); after the connection members and the outer sleeve are kept relatively fixed, a gap is left between an upper end of the connection members and an upper end of the outer sleeve (as in Fig. 1 of Bricker), and a part of the outer sleeve located in the gap forms a column head (43 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 3, Pierce as modified teaches a column head (43 of Pierce) having an unspecified length. Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the table of Pierce as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the length of the column head 10 cm, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the table (e.g., intended use of the table, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Bricker teaches a connection member (30, 32) that is sleeve-shaped (Figs. 1-2), which is sleeved on an outer sleeve (12, 14) and locked by clamping or screws (col. 3, line 60 to col. 4, line 26).
Regarding claim 5, Bricker teaches a tabletop support bracket (22, 24, 74) that has a supporting part (i.e., portions of 22 & 24 between 26 & 28 - see Fig. 1) for supporting a tabletop (56), an upper end of the supporting part forms a supporting surface (26), the supporting surface is flush with the upper end of the connection member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Pierce teaches a bracket (51-52 of Pierce) above a table (56 of Bricker) that is connected to the column head (43 of Pierce), and the bracket above the table is configured to place or hang objects (Fig. 1 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 7, Pierce teaches a bracket (51-52 of Pierce) above a table (56 of Bricker) that is a single pillar (52 of Pierce), the pillar is sleeved (Fig. 1 of Pierce) on the column head (43 of Pierce), and a support plate (51 of Pierce) or a hanging bracket is provided on the pillar.
Regarding claim 8, Pierce teaches a bracket (51-52 of Pierce) above a table (56 of Bricker) that comprises a layer board (51 of Pierce) spanning the left and right sides of the height adjustable table, and support columns (52 of Pierce) are installed at both ends of the layer board, and the support columns are sleeved (Fig. 1 of Pierce) on the column heads (43 of Pierce).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce (5483903) & Bricker (4735152) in view of Allen (20190374023).
Regarding claim 9, Pierce as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a driving mechanism (33, 46-47 of Pierce) that comprises an actuator (46 of Pierce) and a push rod (33 of Pierce), the push rod is contained (Figs. 5-6 of Pierce) in the lifting column (25-26 of Pierce), the push rod has a fixed section (34 of Pierce) and a telescopic section (36-37 of Pierce), the fixed section is relatively fixed to an innermost inner sleeve (26 of Pierce); the telescopic section is relatively fixed to the outer sleeve (Figs. 5-6 of Pierce); and transmission means (47 of Pierce); but fail(s) to teach a power input part. However, Allen teaches transmission means (26, 30, 52) comprising a power input part (52) formed on (Fig. 16 & par. 59) a fixed section (50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute transmission emans, as taught by Allen, for the transmission means of Pierce as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to transmit motive power from the actuator to the push rods (as suggested by par. 58 of Allen), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known transmission means for another. Hence, Pierce as modified would teach a power input part (52 of Allen) and an actuator (46 of Pierce) that are both arranged close (as in Fig. 4 of Pierce) to the ground (15 of Pierce); a driving force of the actuator is adapted to be transmitted to the push rod (33 of Pierce) through the power input part (par. 58 of Allen), so that the push rod drives the inner and outer sleeves to complete telescopic lifting and lowering (as in col. 6, lines 40-58 of Pierce & par. 57-58 of Allen).
Regarding claim 10, Pierce as modified teaches a transmission rod (26 of Allen), both ends of which are respectively inserted into corresponding power input parts (52 of Allen), and the actuator (46 of Pierce) is configured to drive the transmission rod to rotate so that the lifting columns (25-26 of Pierce) on both sides can be lifted and lowered synchronously (as in col. 6, lines 40-58 of Pierce & par. 57-58 of Allen); similarly, the transmission rod is arranged at a position close (as in Fig. 4 of Pierce) to the ground (15 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 11, Pierce as modified teaches a cover (49 & unlabeled shroud of Pierce) that is provided outside the transmission rod (26 of Allen), the cover extends along the length direction of the transmission rod and covers the transmission rod and the actuator (as in Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 5, lines 43-45 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 12, Pierce teaches a cover shell (49 & unlabeled shroud of Pierce) that is additionally configured as a footrest of the height adjustable table (Fig. 1 of Pierce).
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
