DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 20, 2026.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. In line 2, the phrase “the first end of primary leg” does not have a proper antecedent basis [such language has a basis within Claim 2].
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buono [US 6,651,568]. Buono teaches of a table (10) comprising: at least one frame (16a-16d) having a top end and a bottom end (top end and bottom end as shown in fig. 5 orientation), the frame comprising; a primary leg (14a); two secondary legs (14b, 14d), each of the secondary legs adjacent to the primary leg (shown); and a plurality of support rails (48’s for instance) extending between the primary leg and each of the secondary legs (each of the respective rails can be viewed as reading on the broadly recited limitation), each of the plurality of support rails comprising a pivotable connection between the primary leg (such as shown in fig. 6) and each of the secondary legs (would be similarly mounted); wherein the secondary legs are configured to pivot with respect to the primary leg about the pivotable connection between the support rails and the primary leg (each of the legs can be pivoted individually between use and stowed positions); a flat top (12) attached to the at least one frame at the top end of the at least one frame, the at least one flat top having a working surface (20). As to Claim 2, each of the primary leg and the two secondary legs has a first end (upper end – fig. 1) and a second end (lower end – fig. 1), the first end of the primary leg defines the top end of the frame (shown). As to Claim 5, the flat top comprises a plurality of fastener holes (such as the inherent holes used to accept the fasteners (128) that also pass through the apertures (110) of the frame). As to Claim 6, the table further comprising a plurality of fasteners (128) positioned within the fastener holes (note above), each fastener connecting the flat top to one of the primary leg and the secondary legs (via the intervening frame for instance). As to Claim 10, the flat top is substantially circular (as shown in fig. 1).
Claims 1-4 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh [US 8,375,870]. Hsieh teaches of a table (fig. 1) comprising: at least one frame (12) having a top end and a bottom end (top end and bottom end as shown in fig. 3 orientation), the frame comprising; a primary leg (first (21)); two secondary legs (second (21) & third (21)), each of the secondary legs adjacent to the primary leg (fig.1); and a plurality of support rails (213’s or 214’s for instance) extending between the primary leg and each of the secondary legs (each of the respective rails can be viewed as reading on the broadly recited limitation), each of the plurality of support rails comprising a pivotable connection (along either (22) or (23) for instance) between the primary leg and each of the secondary legs (fig. 2); wherein the secondary legs are configured to pivot with respect to the primary leg about the pivotable connection between the support rails and the primary leg (each of the legs can be pivoted individually between use and stowed positions); a flat top (11) attached to the at least one frame at the top end of the at least one frame, the at least one flat top having a working surface (122). As to Claim 2, each of the primary leg and the two secondary legs has a first end (upper end – fig. 2) and a second end (lower end – fig. 12), the first end of the primary leg defines the top end of the frame (shown). As to Claim 3, the plurality of support rails comprise a first support rail (such as (214) or either of the two opposing (213’s) for instance) extending from the primary leg to a first adjacent secondary leg (such as to adjacent leg (21)) and a second support rail (such as 213 or the other of the one opposing (213) not relied upon above) extending from the primary leg to a second adjacent secondary leg (such as to other adjacent leg (21)). As to Claim 4, the first support rail (right side (213) – fig. 2) is positioned between the second support rail (left side (213) – fig. 2) and the first end of primary leg (when viewing axially, in the page direction, the first support rail can be viewed as between the other features). As to Claim 10, the flat top is substantially circular (as shown in fig. 1).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buono in view of Palmer [US 4,825,781]. Buono teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed table as outlined above, but does not show the use of rubber washers used in conjunction with the fastener holes and the fasteners as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Palmer is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of employing a rubber washer (33) along with a fastener (30) in securing a part of a leg assembly (A,B) to a tabletop (C). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buono so as to include rubber washers along with the fasteners in view of Palmer’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing for a small degree of movement between the coupled parts (due to the elasticity of the rubber material), thereby reducing the stress acting upon the coupled components.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buono in view of Boda et al., [US 2012/0227638]. Buono teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed table as outlined above, including the flat top comprises a first table face (top side face – fig. 1) on a first side of the table surface and a second table face (bottom side face – fig. 2) on a second side of the table surface, but does show the fastener holes extending from the first table face to the second table face, and wherein the working surface of the flat top is interchangeable between the first table face and the second table face. As to the positioning of the holes, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener hole location by rearranging the placement of such holes so that a through hole is utilized that can be accessed from either table face, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. As to the interchangeability of the flat top, Boda is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of providing a flat top (50) of a table (10) that can be positioned in two different positions, i.e., the flat top can be utilized in a first table face (60) side up, or a second table face (70) side up as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Buono so as to incorporate first and second table faces in view of Boda’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by affording an end user the ability to change the look of the table (via flipping the tabletop) in order to achieve a desired effect (such as two different colors between the table faces).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached form PTO-892 showing various table assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, 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.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. 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.
JOH
September 3, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights