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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, in line 4, the limitation “where the decorative panel includes” is not clear because it does not say which panel of the plurality of decorative panels includes the embedded groove.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 5-6, the limitation “runs through an upper portion and lower portion of the decorative panel” is not clear because it does not say which panel of the decorative panels the embedded groove is running through.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rectangular body" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, in line 5, the limitation “where the decorative panel includes” is not clear because it does not say which panel of the plurality of decorative panels includes the embedded groove.
Regarding claim 9, in line 10, the limitation “on the surface” is not clear because it can’t be determined which surface the claim is referring too.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lifting slot" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, in lines 1-2, the limitation “the side pillar” is not clear because the claim previously recites four side panels it can’t be determined which or all side pillars the claim is referring too.
Regarding claim 11, in lines 2, the limitation “connected the decorative strip edge” is not clear. Is the buckle connected to the decorative strip edge?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5, 6 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruger et al. (US patent application publication 2018/0344024) (hereinafter Kruger).
Regarding claim 1, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table comprising: a screen assembly having a rectangular frame (112); a plurality of decorative panels (120a, 120b) formed on both sides of the rectangular frame, forming a rectangular body, where the decorative panel includes at least one embedded groove (154) that runs through an upper portion and lower portion of the decorative panel; a desktop board (111), extending substantially orthogonally from the screen assembly, that moves within the groove by a lifting mechanism (106) arranged within the rectangular body; and wherein the desktop board can be raised and lowered to a desired level above a floor based on user comfort.
Regarding claim 2, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table wherein the lifting mechanism is configured vertically within the screen assembly such that the at least one groove is positioned therein (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table further comprising: at least one support cantilever (174) that moves within the groove for supporting the desktop board.
Regarding claim 5, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table comprising: a screen assembly having a rectangular frame (112); a plurality of decorative panels (120a, 120b) formed on both sides of the rectangular frame and having at least one embedded groove (154) that is configured vertically through the rectangular body; a desktop board (111) extending from the rectangular frame that operates as a working surface; a lifting mechanism (106) having at least one electrical motor (170) for moving the desktop board within the groove; and wherein the desktop board can be raised and lowered to a desired level above a floor based on user comfort.
Regarding claim 6, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table further comprising: a plurality of support cantilevers (174) positioned within the at least one groove for supporting the desktop board.
Regarding claim 8, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table wherein the lifting mechanism is configured vertically within the screen assembly such that the at least one groove is positioned therein (Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Gosling et al. (US patent application publication 2020/0048899) (hereinafter Gosling).
Regarding claim 4, Kruger discloses the table as claimed. Kruger does not disclose a table further comprising: a controller connected to a lifting mechanism for adjusting the height of the desktop board. Gosling teaches a table comprising a controller (250) for adjusting the height of a desktop board. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger to include a controller in view of Gosling teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for adjusting the height of the desktop board.
Regarding claim 7, Kruger discloses the table as claimed. Kruger does not disclose a table further comprising: a controller connected to a lifting mechanism for adjusting the height of the desktop board. Gosling teaches a table comprising a controller (250) for adjusting the height of a desktop board. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger to include a controller in view of Gosling teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for adjusting the height of the desktop board.
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Gosling Towfigh (US patent 5,531,168).
Regarding claim 9, Kruger discloses an intelligent lifting table having a screen structure, comprising: a screen assembly having a rectangular frame (112) formed by four side pillars (118a, 118b, 114, 116); and a plurality of decorative panels (120a, 120b) formed on both sides of the rectangular frame to form a rectangular body where the decorative panel includes an embedded groove (154) that runs through an upper portion and lower portion of the decorative panel; a lifting assembly (106) having at least two sets of lifting mechanisms (Fig. 5 shows them on both sides) arranged in the rectangular body where each lifting mechanism is provided with a lifting groove (Fig. 10) on the surface corresponding to the embedded groove;; at least one support cantilever (174) within the lifting slot; a desktop board (111) fixedly connected to a support cantilever.
Kruger does not disclose a controller connected to each lifting mechanism; and a plurality of support legs fixed on a bottom of the screen assembly for supporting the intelligent lift table.
Gosling teaches a table comprising a controller (250) for adjusting the height of a desktop board. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger to include a controller connected to each lifting mechanism in view of Gosling’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for adjusting the height of the desktop board.
Towfigh teaches a plurality of support legs (14) fixed on a bottom of the screen assembly for supporting a lift table. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger to include a plurality of support legs for supporting the table in view of Towfigh’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided allowed the unit to be easily moved as taught by Towfigh.
Regarding claim 10, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table where the side pillar is formed with a decorative edge strip (12) attached to the rectangular frame.
Regarding claim 11, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table further comprising: a buckle ([0048]) connected the decorative edge strip for covering the an outside of the rectangular frame.
Regarding claim 12, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table further comprising: a plurality of supporting columns (118c, 118d) provided inside the screen assembly such that the lifting mechanism is positioned between the supporting columns.
Regarding claim 14, Kruger, as modified, teaches the intelligent lifting table as claimed. Kruger, as modified, does not teach an intelligent lifting table wherein the side pillars and the support columns are connected to the panel module through a plurality of snap strips. The examiner is taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that snap strips are common and well known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kurger, as previously modified, wherein the side pillars and the support columns are connected to the panel module through a plurality of snap strips, because this arrangement would have replace done known connection means with another known means yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 15, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table wherein the lifting assembly further includes an electrically controlled switch (Gosling: 252, 254), electrically connected to the controller for controlling movement of the desktop board.
Regarding claim 16, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table wherein the controller is connected to a power converter (Gosling [0077]) for providing power to the lifting assembly.
Regarding claim 18, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table further comprising: a plurality of support legs having attached wheels (Towfish: 32) for moving the screen assembly.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Gosling, Towfigh and Mitchell et al. (US patent 9,693,624).
Regarding claim 13, Kruger, as modified, teaches an intelligent lifting table wherein the decorative panel includes a plurality of panel modules (120a, 180, 178) detachably installed on the side pillars and the supporting columns. Kruger, as modified, does not teach the plurality of panel modules in a vertical direction, so that gaps are left between the panel modules to form embedded grooves. Mitchell teaches a table wherein a plurality of panel modules (80, 82, 85) in a vertical direction, so that gaps are left between the panel modules to form embedded grooves (Fig. 3). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger, as previously modified, wherein the panel modules are in a vertical direction, so that gaps are left between the panel modules to form embedded grooves in view of Mitchell’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Gosling, Towfigh and Moore (US patent application publication 2019/0223590).
Regarding claim 17, Kruger, as modified, teaches the table as claimed. Kruger, as modified, does not teach a table wherein a socket module is configured at the bottom of the decorative panel for providing electrical connection. Moore teaches a socket module (151). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Kruger, as previously modified, to include a socket module is configured at the bottom of the decorative panel for providing electrical connection in view of Moore’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means connecting cords to the lifting table.
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
Prosecution Insights