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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the gap between the upper edge of the hollow support structure and the bottom surface of the desktop panel is not referenced in the drawings. 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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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. For claim 8, it is unclear what is encompassed by the “gap” between the upper edge of the hollow support structure and the bottom surface of the desktop panel, e.g. is the gap a space between the members or is there a different structure forming a gap there between.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco (7,401,796) in view of Fan et al (2013/0026113). Greco teaches a desk with components (Fig. 2), comprising a desktop panel (205), a support component (203), and at least one component (214), the support component includes a component support frame (203, front and middle) and at least one first desk leg (203, rear); the support frame is configured to be mounted to a bottom surface of the desktop panel (see Fig. 2), and the at least one component is configured to be placed on the support frame; the first desk leg is configured to connect to a portion of the bottom surface of the desktop panel to where the support frame is not mounted, and forms an interval space with the support frame, wherein the first desk leg and the support frame jointly support the desktop panel; at least one hollow support structure (215, rear member) is mounted in the interval space. For claim 1, Greco fails to teach that the at least one component is movable mounted. Fan teaches four support components (100,200) that support rails (10) for movable components (800). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desk of Greco by adding support rails between the respective support component pairs, such as is taught by Fan, to provide sliding components/drawers with the desk.
Greco in view of Fan further teaches that the hollow support structure is a porous grid plate (either mesh or vents; column 3, lines 19-24 of Greco). Wherein holes of the porous grid plate are evenly distributed. Wherein the hollow support structure is configured to connect to the first desk leg and the drawer support frame. Wherein the hollow support structure is located underneath the desktop panel. Wherein the hollow support structure is vertically placed. Wherein the drawer support frame is configured to be mounted to the bottom surface of the desktop panel at a front side, and the first desk leg is configured to be connected to the bottom surface of the desktop panel at a rear side. Wherein the desk with drawers further comprises at least one second desk leg (203, opposite rear side; similar to Fig. 4), which is configured to be mounted to the bottom surface of the desktop panel, and a gap is formed between the at least one second desk leg and the first desk leg, as well as the drawer support frame, respectively. As best understood, there is a gap of a preset height that is formed between an upper edge of the hollow support structure and the bottom surface of the desktop panel (upper frame of 215 providing the gap, mesh of 215 being the hollow support structure).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco (7,401,796) in view of Fan et al (2013/0026113) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-10 above, and further in view of He (D931,657). As stated above, Greco in view of Fan teaches the limitation of claim 1, including a hollow support structure. For claim 5, Greco in view of Fan fails to teach that the hollow support structure is horizontally placed. He teaches a desk having hollow support structure that is horizontally placed (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desk of Greco in view of Fan by adding a hollow support structure (215) on the rear bottom panel (201) thereof, the panel being horizonal such as is taught by He, to provide lower ventilation in the desk.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnstrand (1,247,712) in view of Wang (CN115251576). Ohnstrand teaches a
desk with drawers (Figs. 1-3), comprising a desktop panel (3), a support component (6, 7,11,13,35,43), and at least one drawer (shown in Fig. 1), the support component includes a drawer support frame (with 6,7,35) and at least one first desk leg (4); the drawer support frame is configured to be mounted to a bottom surface of the desktop panel, and the at least one drawer is configured to be slidably placed on the drawer support frame; the first desk leg is configured to connect to a portion of the bottom surface of the desktop panel to where the drawer support frame is not mounted, and forms an interval space with the drawer support frame (see rear space in Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the first desk leg and the drawer support frame jointly support the desktop panel. For claim 1, Ohnstrand fails to teach at least one hollow support structure mounted in the interval space. Wang teaches a hollow support structure (10; Fig. 2) mounted in a vertical panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desk of Ohnstrand by adding a hollow support structure, such as is taught by Wang, in the rear of the panel (11), to provide ventilation within the desk.
Ohnstrand in view of Wang further teaches that the hollow support structure is a porous grid plate. Wherein holes of the porous grid plate are evenly distributed. Wherein the hollow support structure is located underneath the desktop panel. Wherein the hollow support structure is vertically placed. Wherein the drawer support frame is configured to be mounted to the bottom surface of the desktop panel at a front side, and the first desk leg is configured to be connected to the bottom surface of the desktop panel at a rear side. Wherein the desk with drawers further comprises at least one second desk leg (5), which is configured to be mounted to the bottom surface of the desktop panel, and a gap is formed between the at least one second desk leg and the first desk leg, as well as the drawer support frame, respectively. As best understood, there is a gap of a preset height that is formed between an upper edge of the hollow support structure and the bottom surface of the desktop panel (portion of 11 between desktop panel and hollow support structure).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnstrand (1,247,712) in view of Wang (CN115251576) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-10 above, and further in view of He (D931,657). As stated above, Ohnstrand in view of Wang teaches the limitation of claim 1, including a hollow support structure. For claim 5, Ohnstrand in view of Wang fails to teach that the hollow support structure is horizontally placed. He teaches a desk having hollow support structure that is horizontally placed (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the desk of Ohnstrand in view of Wang by adding a hollow support structure (10 of Wang) on the rear bottom panel (14 of Ohnstrand) thereof, the panel being horizonal such as is taught by He, to provide lower ventilation in the desk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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. 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.
Wilkens
August 25, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights